G.R. No. 144025 December 27, 2002
SPS. RENE GONZAGA and LERIO GONZAGA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Second Division, Manila, HON. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, Judge, RTC, Branch 36, Sixth Judicial Region, Iloilo City, and LUCKY HOMES, INC., represented by WILSON JESENA, JR., as Manager, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner-spouses purchased Lot No. 19 from private respondent Lucky Homes, Inc. in 1970. The lot was mortgaged to the SSS as security for a housing loan. Due to a mistake by private respondent in identifying the lot, petitioners constructed their house on the adjacent Lot No. 18. Upon being informed of the error, petitioners offered to buy Lot No. 18 but later defaulted on their SSS loan, resulting in the foreclosure of Lot No. 19. After the foreclosure, petitioners offered to swap the lots and demanded the reformation of their contract to reflect the sale of Lot No. 18, where their house stood. Private respondent refused. Petitioners filed an action for reformation of contract and damages (Civil Case No. 17115) with the RTC of Iloilo City. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ordered petitioners to pay moral damages and attorney’s fees, and later issued a writ of execution. Only after the adverse decision and the issuance of the writ did petitioners file an urgent motion to recall the writ, alleging for the first time that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case, as jurisdiction was vested in the HLURB under P.D. 957. They subsequently filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals based on this lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners are estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over Civil Case No. 17115 after having actively participated in the proceedings therein.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ application of the doctrine of estoppel by laches as established in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy. The Court held that a party who voluntarily invokes the jurisdiction of a court and actively participates in all stages of the proceedings is barred from later assailing that court’s jurisdiction, especially after receiving an unfavorable judgment. Petitioners themselves filed the action for reformation in the RTC, vigorously asserted their cause for two years, and never raised the issue of jurisdiction during the entire trial. It was only after an adverse decision and writ of execution that they questioned the RTC’s jurisdiction. This conduct constitutes a waiver of their right to challenge jurisdiction and is a trifling with the courts that public policy condemns. The Court reiterated that the principle in Tijam remains good law and has been consistently upheld in subsequent jurisprudence.