G.R. No. 215640, November 28, 2016
NESTOR CABRERA, PETITIONER, VS. ARNEL CLARIN AND WIFE; MILAGROS BARRIOS AND HUSBAND; AURORA SERAFIN AND HUSBAND; AND BONIFACIO MORENO AND WIFE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Nestor Cabrera filed a Complaint for accion publiciana with damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, alleging he is the lawful and registered owner of a 60,000-square-meter agricultural land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4439. He claimed respondents, by means of fraud, strategy, and stealth, encroached upon and occupied portions of his property in December 2005. Despite oral and written demands and barangay conciliation efforts, respondents refused to vacate. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to state the assessed value of the property, which is necessary to determine the correct docket fees and jurisdiction. The RTC denied the motion, declared respondents in default for failing to file an Answer, and eventually ruled in favor of Cabrera, ordering respondents to vacate and pay attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC Decision, dismissing the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The CA found that Cabrera failed to allege the assessed value of the property in his complaint, which is the jurisdictional element for real actions under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691. Cabrera filed a petition for review, arguing that respondents were estopped from raising the jurisdictional issue and that a tax declaration attached to his Appellee’s Brief provided the assessed value.

ISSUE

Whether or not estoppel bars respondents from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction due to the petitioner’s failure to allege the assessed value of the property in his complaint for accion publiciana.

RULING

No, estoppel does not bar respondents from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. Jurisdiction over the subject matter in accion publiciana is determined by the assessed value of the property involved, as provided by Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended. The petitioner’s complaint failed to allege this assessed value, a fatal defect that prevented the trial court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. The defense of lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not subject to waiver or estoppel. The principle of estoppel by laches, as applied in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, is the exception, not the rule, and requires a party’s active participation in the proceedings over a considerable length of time. Here, respondents raised the jurisdictional issue at the earliest opportunity via their Motion to Dismiss and consistently pursued it on appeal; they did not actively participate in the trial on the merits. Furthermore, the tax declaration submitted by the petitioner for the first time on appeal before the CA could not cure the jurisdictional defect, as it was not formally offered as evidence before the trial court. Therefore, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction, and all proceedings therein were null and void. The complaint was correctly dismissed without prejudice.