G.R. No. 173021 ; October 20, 2010
DELFIN LAMSIS, MAYNARD MONDIGUING, JOSE VALDEZ, JR. and Heirs of AGUSTIN KITMA, represented by EUGENE KITMA, Petitioners, vs. MARGARITA SEMON DONG-E, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Margarita Semon Dong-E filed a complaint for recovery of ownership, possession, reconveyance, and damages against petitioners, who are her first cousins and the actual occupants of an untitled parcel of land in Baguio City. Margarita traced her claim of ownership to her grandfather, Ap-ap, since 1922, supported by a 1964 tax declaration and a Deed of Quitclaim executed by Ap-ap’s heirs in favor of her father. She alleged that petitioners’ parents were merely allowed to stay on portions of the land by tolerance. The petitioners, however, denied Margarita’s ownership, asserting the land was public land claimed by the heirs of Joaquin Smith, who permitted their occupation. They challenged the validity of Margarita’s documents, noting the exclusion of two heirs from the quitclaim.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Margarita, declaring her the rightful owner and ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises and pay damages. On appeal, the petitioners raised for the first time the argument that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the case involved a dispute over ancestral domain, which under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) falls under the jurisdiction of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision despite an alleged lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court held that the petitioners were barred by laches from raising the jurisdictional issue. Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. The petitioners were aware of the factual circumstances—including the parties’ indigenous lineage and the claim based on ancestral land—from the inception of the case at the RTC. They actively participated in the trial, presented evidence, and only raised the jurisdictional challenge for the first time on appeal to the CA. This deliberate inaction constitutes a waiver of the right to assail jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that a party cannot speculate on the outcome of a case and raise jurisdiction only after receiving an adverse judgment. Furthermore, the Court found that the RTC correctly exercised jurisdiction as the action was essentially a plenary action for recovery of ownership (accion reivindicatoria), a matter well within its general jurisdiction. The evidence, including tax declarations and the Deed of Quitclaim, sufficiently established Margarita’s ownership and her predecessors’ open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the land.