GR 127480; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127480 . February 28, 2000.
CONCHITA L. ABELLERA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JULIETO P. TABIOLO, as Judge, RTC, Quezon City, Branch 106, and SPS. BELTRAN and NICERITA ACEBUCHE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Conchita L. Abellera, a beneficiary of a Quezon City urban housing lot, left the property in the care of her brother, respondent Beltran Acebuche. Upon her return, the respondents refused to vacate. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of Abellera in an unlawful detainer case, ordering the respondents to vacate and pay compensation. The respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). During the pendency of the appeal, the MeTC decision was executed as the respondents failed to post a supersedeas bond. The RTC, however, conducted multiple clarificatory hearings and ordered an ocular inspection after respondents presented a new Contract to Sell from the city government. The RTC subsequently reversed the MeTC and dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in conducting clarificatory hearings and an ocular inspection, effectively holding a trial de novo, and whether petitioner is estopped from questioning these proceedings.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ denial of the petition for certiorari. The legal logic centers on the principle of estoppel. Petitioner Abellera actively participated in the seven clarificatory hearings, presented multiple witnesses and documentary evidence, and filed formal offers of exhibits without any prior objection to the RTC’s proceedings. She only questioned the RTC’s authority to conduct the hearings and inspection after an adverse judgment was rendered. By voluntarily submitting to the court’s jurisdiction and seeking affirmative relief from it, a party is estopped from later challenging that jurisdiction. The Court cited Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, which bars a party from repudiating the jurisdiction of a court after invoking it. However, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ grant of the respondents’ motion for execution pending appeal, noting that the case was before the CA on certiorari, not ordinary appeal, and such a motion should have been resolved by the trial court.