Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy Facts 1.

Spouses Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog first commenced this civil case in CFI Cebu against the spouses Sibonghanoy to recover from them the sum of Php 1,908.00 with legal interest. CFI Cebu granted their petition and issued a writ of attachment against the properties of spouses Sibonghanoy. However, such writ was dissolved upon the filing of a counter-bond by spouses Sibonghanoy and the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co (Surety) 2. After trial, CFI rendered judgment in favour of spouses Tijam and issued a writ of execution after judgment became final & executory. Such writ, however, was returned unsatisfied. In effect, spouses Tijam moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against the Suretys bond. a. The Surety then prayed to deny the motion for execution based on the grounds of failure to prosecute and the absence of demand upon the surety. Also, the Surety prayed for an affirmative relief that they be relieved from liability. b. Thereafter, spouses Tijam made the necessary demands against the Surety and subsequently filed a 2nd motion for execution, which was eventually granted by the Court. 3. The Surety moved to quash the 2nd writ of execution on the ground of its issuance without the required summary hearing provided for in Sec. 17 Rule 59, ROC. The Suretys motion was denied by the court which lead them to file an appeal to the CA. Note that the issue on lack of jurisdiction was never raised by the Surety in their appeal to the CA. 4. CA affirmed the CFI judgments/orders. Five days after the receipt of the CA decision, the Surety filed a motion for extension of time for filing of a motion for reconsideration. However, instead of an MR, the Surety filed a Motion to Dismiss two days after the extension for MR was granted. a. In their Motion to Dismiss, the Surety alleged CFI Cebus lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Judiciary Act which had become effective a month before the case commenced. i. Surety argues that according to Sec. 88 of the Judiciary Act, CFI has no jurisdiction over civil actions where the value of the subject-matter or the amount of the demand does not exceed Php2,000.00 5. Spouses Tijam did not file their answer. Hence, the CA resolved to set aside its decision to uphold the writ of execution and certified the case to the SC in view of the important issues raised and because the case has been pending for nearly 15 years already. Issue: WON all orders of the CFI Cebu should be nullified on the ground of lack of jurisdiction (No) 1. On jurisdiction a. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law b. Lack of jurisdiction affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case c. Objections on jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings 2. In the case at bar, the doctrine of laches applies given the facts & circumstances. a. The moment the Surety became involved in the case at bar, they already acquired certain rights & assumed specific obligation in connection with the pending case. Hence, as early as 1948 (case reached SC in 1968), the Surety already had the right to raise the issue on lack of jursidction. b. However, a party may be stopped or barred from raising a question in different ways: estoppels in pais, or stopped by deed or by record, and of estoppels by laches.

c. Doctrine of laches or of stale demands i. Based upon the ground of public policy ii. Negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it d. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent, and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. This is exactly what the Surety did. e. If we are to grant Suretys motion to annul all the decisions of the CFI, there will be inequity and unfairnesss. 3. (Side issue only) On the issue of lack of summary proceeding a. What is important is that the parties were given the opportunity to be heard and to defend their side. In the case at bar, the Surety was not denied of that opportunity. The records show that when given such opportunity, the counsel of the Surety merely asked for an extension for filing of an answer.