Venancio Fugueroa y Cervantes vs.

People of the
Philippines

The general rule should, however, be, as it has always been,

that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by
estoppel. Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the
courts absence or lack of jurisdiction, only supervenes in
exceptional cases similar to the factual milieu of Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy. Indeed, the fact that a person attempts to invoke
unauthorized jurisdiction of a court does not estop him from
thereafter challenging its jurisdiction over the subject matter,
since such jurisdiction must arise by law and not by mere
consent of the parties. This is especially true where the person
seeking to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of the court does
not thereby secure any advantage or the adverse party does
not suffer any harm.
Applying the said doctrine to the instant case,
the petitioner is in no way estopped by laches in assailing the
jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that he raised the lack
thereof in his appeal before the appellate court. At that time, no
considerable period had yet elapsed for laches to attach. True,
delay alone, though unreasonable, will not sustain the defense
of estoppel by laches unless it further appears that the party,
knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them until the
condition of the party pleading laches has in good faith become
so changed that he cannot be restored to his former state, if the
rights be then enforced, due to loss of evidence, change of title,
intervention of equities, and other causes. In applying the
principle of estoppel by laches in the exceptional case
of Sibonghanoy, the Court therein considered the patent and
revolting inequity and unfairness of having the judgment
creditors go up their Calvary once more after more or less 15
years. The same, however, does not obtain in the instant case.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES- versus - BANTIGUE

POINT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION- Application for
land registration
Republic is not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of
the lower court, even if the former raised the jurisdictional
question only on appeal. The rule is settled that lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage
of the proceedings.Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred only by the Constitution or the law. It cannot be
acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the
parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the
court. Consequently, questions of jurisdiction may be
cognizable even if raised for the first time on appeal.
The ruling of the Court of Appeals that a party may be
estopped from raising such [jurisdictional] question if he has
actively taken part in the very proceeding which he questions,
belatedly objecting to the court’s jurisdiction in the event that
the judgment or order subsequently rendered is adverse to
him is based on the doctrine of estoppel by laches. We are
aware of that doctrine first enunciated by this Court in Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy. In Tijam, the party-litigant actively participated
in the proceedings before the lower court and filed pleadings
therein. Only 15 years thereafter, and after receiving an
adverse Decision on the merits from the appellate court, did
the party-litigant question the lower courts jurisdiction.
Considering the unique facts in that case, we held that estoppel
by laches had already precluded the party-litigant from raising
the question of lack of jurisdiction on appeal. In Figueroa v.
People, we cautioned that Tijam must be construed as an
exception to the general rule and applied only in the most
exceptional cases whose factual milieu is similar to that in the
latter case.
The facts are starkly different in this case, making the
exceptional rule in Tijam inapplicable. Here, petitioner
Republic filed its Opposition to the application for registration
when the records were still with the RTC. At that point,
petitioner could not have questioned the delegated jurisdiction
of the MTC, simply because the case was not yet with that
court. When the records were transferred to the MTC,
petitioner neither filed pleadings nor requested affirmative
relief from that court. On appeal, petitioner immediately raised
the jurisdictional question in its Brief. Clearly, the exceptional
doctrine of estoppel by laches is inapplicable to the instant
appeal.
Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which,
by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done
earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party
entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert
it. In this case, petitioner Republic has not displayed such
unreasonable failure or neglect that would lead us to conclude
that it has abandoned or declined to assert its right to question
the lower court's jurisdiction.
 SPOUSES HERMINIO E. ERORITA AND EDITHA C.
ERORITA v. SPOUSES LIGAYA DUMLAO AND ANTONIO
DUMLAO- Ejectment Case
Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any
time.
With the jurisdictional issue resolved, we now examine
whether the petitioners timely raised this issue.

As a general rule, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter

may be raised at any time, or even for the first time on appeal.
An exception to this rule is the principle of estoppel by laches.

Estoppel by laches may only be invoked to bar the defense of

lack of jurisdiction if the factual milieu is analogous to Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy.14 In that case, lack of jurisdiction was raised for
the first time after almost fifteen (15) years after the questioned
ruling had been rendered and after the movant actively
participated in several stages of the proceedings. It was only
invoked, too, after the CA rendered a decision adverse to the
movant.

In Figueroa v. People, we ruled that the failure to assail

jurisdiction during trial is not sufficient for estoppel by laches
to apply. When lack of jurisdiction is raised before the
appellate court, no considerable length of time had elapsed for
laches to apply.16 Laches refers to the "negligence or omission
to assert a right within a reasonable length of time, warranting
a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned it or declined to assert it."17

The factual setting of this present case is not similar to Tijam so

as to trigger the; application of the estoppel by laches doctrine.
As in Figueroa, the present petitioners assailed the RTC's
jurisdiction in their appeal before the CA. Asserting lack of
jurisdiction on appeal before the CA does not constitute laches.
Furthermore, the filing of an answer and the failure to attend
the pre-trial do not constitute the active participation in judicial
proceedings contemplated in Tijam.

Thus, the general rule should apply. The petitioners timely

questioned the RTC's jurisdiction.

ESPERANZA TUMPAG, substituted by her son, PABLITO

TUMPAG BELNAS, JR., vs. SAMUEL TUMPAG
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case can
always be raised anytime, even for the first time on appeal,
since jurisdictional issues, as a rule, cannot be acquired
through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or
conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Thus, the
respondent is not prevented from raising the question on the
court's jurisdiction in his appeal

M/s Mavany Brothers Vs CIT (Bombay High Court at Goa)

An issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time even in
appeal or execution

Brief- High Court of Bombay at Goa has held in the case of

In the case of M/s Mavany Brothers vs. CIT that that it is
settled position that conferment of jurisdiction is a
legislative function and cannot be conferred by consent of
petitioner. An issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any
time even in appeal or execution.

Held by High Court

After considering the rival contentions, Hon’ble High Court
pronounced that the jurisdiction under Section 147/148 of the
Act is an extra ordinary jurisdiction and can only be exercised
when condition precedent as provided in Sections 147/148 of
the Act are satisfied. In the absence of the Assessing Officer
having the original return of income available it would not be
possible for him to have a reasonable belief that income
chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The view of the
Revenue that the issue of jurisdiction could only have been
raised before the Assessing Officer and not having been raised
before him, the appellant had waived its rights to raise the
same is not entirely correct. It is well settled that mere
acquiescence will not give jurisdiction to an authority who has
no jurisdiction. Mere participation by a party in proceedings
without jurisdiction will not vest/confer jurisdiction on the
authority. Reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has
escaped assessment is a jurisdictional fact and only on its
satisfaction, the Assessing Officer acquires jurisdiction to issue
notice. An objection to it can be raised at any time even in
appeal proceedings. The mere fact that no objection is taken
before the Assessing Officer would not by itself bestow
jurisdiction to the A.O. Moreover, the Apex Court in its recent
decision in Kanwar Singh Saini V/s. High Court Of
Delhi reported in 2012(4) SCC 307 has held that it is settled
position that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function
and cannot be conferred by consent of petitioner. An issue of
jurisdiction can be raised at any time even in appeal or
execution.
Distinction between a Rule 45 Petition for Review on
Certiorari and a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari:

"x x x.

Before disposing of the main issue in this case, this Court needs
to address a procedural issue raised by respondents.
Collectively, respondents argue that the Petition is actually one
of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and not a
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. Thus,
petitioner’s failure to show that there was neither appeal nor
any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy merited the
dismissal of the Complaint.

Contrary to respondent’s imputation, the remedy contemplated

by petitioner is clearly that of a Rule 45 Petition for Review. In
Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank,45 this Court made the distinction
between a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari and a Rule
65 Petition for Certiorari:

Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of

jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. In Pure Foods Corporation
v. NLRC, we explained the simple reason for the rule in this
light:
When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed
while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being
exercised when the error is committed x x x. Consequently, an
error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of
its jurisdiction is not correct[a]ble through the original civil
action of certiorari.

xxxx

Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has

jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond
the province of certiorari. Where the error is not one of
jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact a mistake of judgment,
appeal is the remedy.

In this case, what petitioner seeks to rectify may be construed

as errors of judgment of the Court of Appeals. These errors
pertain to the petitioner’s allegation that the appellate court
failed to uphold the findings of facts of the lower court. He does
not impute any error with respect to the Court of Appeals’
exercise of jurisdiction. As such, this Petition is simply a
continuation of the appellate process where a case is elevated
from the trial court of origin, to the Court of Appeals, and to this
Court via Rule 45. Contrary to respondents’ arguments, the
allegations of petitioner that the Court of Appeals “committed
grave abuse of discretion”46 did not ipso facto render the
intended remedy that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.

In any case, even if the Petition is one for the special civil action
of certiorari, this Court has the discretion to treat a Rule 65
Petition for Certiorari as a Rule 45 Petition for Review on
Certiorari. This is allowed if (1) the Petition is filed within the
reglementary period for filing a Petition for review; (2) when
errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient
reason to justify the relaxation of the rules. When this Court
exercises this discretion, there is no need to comply with the
requirements provided for in Rule 65.

In this case, petitioner filed his Petition within the reglementary

period of filing a Petition for Review. His Petition assigns errors
of judgment and appreciation of facts and law on the part of the
Court of Appeals. Thus, even if the Petition was designated as
one that sought the remedy of certiorari, this Court may
exercise its discretion to treat it as a Petition for Review in the
interest of substantial justice.

x x x."