G.R. No.

131282 January 4, 2002

GABRIEL L. DUERO vs. HON.COURT OF AEAL!
This petition for certiorari assails the Decisionl of the Court of Appeals setting aside all proceedings in Civil
Case before the RTC.
FACTS: Sometime in 19! according to petitioner! private respondent "emardo #radel

entered and occupied
petitioner$s land. As sho%n in the ta& declaration! the land had an assessed value of '(!)*+. ,hen petitioner
informed private respondent that the land %as his and re-uested the latter to vacate the land! private respondent
refused.
'etitioner filed before the RTC a complaint for Recover. of 'ossession and /%nership %ith Damages and
Attorne.$s Fees against private respondent and t%o others! namel.! Apolinario and 0nocencio Ruena. 'etitioner
appended to the complaint the aforementioned ta& declaration. 1ean%hile! petitioner and the! Ruenas e&ecuted a
compromise agreement! %hich became the trial court$s basis for a partial 2udgment rendered! %hich stated that
the Ruenas recogni3ed and bound themselves to respect the o%nership and possession of Duero.

4erein private
respondent #radel %as not a part. to the agreement! and he %as declared in default for failure to file his ans%er
to the complaint.

5udgment %as rendered in favor of the petitioner.
'rivate respondent filed before the RTC a 'etition for Relief from 5udgment! reiterating the same allegation in
his 1otion for 6e% Trial. 4e averred that unless there is a determination on %ho o%ned the land! he could not
be made to vacate the land. 4e also averred that the 2udgment of the trial court %as void inasmuch as the heirs of
Artemio 7aurente! Sr.! %ho are indispensable parties! %ere not impleaded.
1otion %as denied.
/n 5anuar. ))! 1998! petitioner filed a 1otion for #&ecution! %hich the RTC granted on 5anuar. ). Respondent
filed his petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals gave due course to the petition! maintaining that private respondent is not estopped from
assailing the 2urisdiction $of the RTC.
0SS9#: ,hether or not the Court of Appeals gravel. abused its discretion %hen it held that the municipal trial
court had 2urisdiction! and that private respondent %as not estopped from assailing the 2urisdiction of the RTC
after he had filed several motions before it.
'etitioner also as:ed this Court to refer to Annex F! %here he said the 3onal value of the disputed land %as '1.*+
per s-.m.! thus placing the computed value of the land at the time the complaint %as filed before the RTC at
'(8!11;.9! hence be.ond the 2urisdiction of the municipal court and %ithin the 2urisdiction of the regional trial
court. 4o%ever! %e find that these anne&es are both merel. &ero& copies. The. are obviousl. %ithout
evidentiar. %eight or value.
Coming no% to the principal issue! petitioner contends that respondent appellate court acted %ith grave abuse of
discretion. ". <grave abuse of discretion< is meant such capricious and %himsical e&ercise of 2udgment %hich is
e-uivalent to an e&cess or a lac: of 2urisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive dut. or a virtual refusal to perform a dut. en2oined b. la%! or to act at all in
contemplation of la% as %here the po%er is e&ercised in an arbitrar. and despotic manner b. reason of passion
or hostilit..

"ut here %e find that in its decision holding that the municipal court has 2urisdiction over the case
and that private respondent %as not estopped from -uestioning the 2urisdiction of the RTC! respondent Court of
Appeals discussed the facts on %hich its decision is grounded as %ell as the la% and 2urisprudence on the matter.
0ts action %as neither %himsical nor capricious.
,as private respondent estopped from -uestioning the 2urisdiction of the RTC= 0n this case! %e are in agreement
%ith the Court of Appeals that he %as not. ,hile participation in all stages of a case before the trial court!
including invocation of its authorit. in as:ing for affirmative relief! effectivel. bars a part. b. estoppel from
challenging the court$s 2urisdiction! %e note that estoppel has become an e-uitable defense that is both
substantive and remedial and its successful invocation can bar a right and not merel. its e-uitable enforcement.
4ence! estoppel ought to be applied %ith caution. For estoppel to appl.! the action giving rise thereto must be
une-uivocal and intentional because! if misapplied! estoppel ma. become a tool of in2ustice.
0n the present case! private respondent -uestions the 2urisdiction of RTC on legal grounds. Recall that it %as
petitioner %ho filed the complaint against private respondent and t%o other parties before the said court!
believing that the RTC had 2urisdiction over his complaint. "ut b. then! Republic Act 8>91 amending "' 1)9
had become effective! such that 2urisdiction alread. belongs not to the RTC but to the 1TC pursuant to said
amendment. 'rivate respondent! an unschooled farmer! in the mista:en belief that since he %as merel. a tenant
of the late Artemio 7aurente Sr.! his landlord! gave the summons to a 4ipolito 7aurente! one of the surviving
heirs of Artemio Sr.! %ho did not do an.thing about the summons. For failure to ans%er the complaint! private
respondent %as declared in default. 4e then filed a 1otion for 6e% Trial in the same court and e&plained that he
defaulted because of his belief that the suit ought to be ans%ered b. his landlord. 0n that motion he stated that he
had b. then the evidence to prove that he had a better right than petitioner over the land because of his long!
continuous and uninterrupted possession as bona-fide tenant?lessee of the land.

"ut his motion %as denied. 4e
tried an alternative recourse. 4e filed before the RTC a 1otion for Relief from 5udgment. Again! the same court
denied his motion! hence he moved for reconsideration of the denial. 0n his 1otion for Reconsideration! he
raised for the first time the RTC$s lac: of 2urisdiction. This motion %as again denied. 6ote that private
respondent raised the issue of lac: of 2urisdiction! not %hen the case %as alread. on appeal! but %hen the case!
%as still before the RTC that ruled him in default! denied his motion for ne% trial as %ell as for relief from
2udgment! and denied li:e%ise his t%o motions for reconsideration. After the RTC still refused to reconsider the
denial of private respondent$s motion for relief from 2udgment! it %ent on to issue the order for entr. of 2udgment
and a %rit of e&ecution.
The fundamental rule is that! the lac: of 2urisdiction of the court over an action cannot be %aived b. the parties!
or even cured b. their silence! ac-uiescence or even b. their e&press consent.Further! a part. ma. assail the
2urisdiction of the court over the action at an. stage of the proceedings and even on appeal.The appellate court
did not err in sa.ing that the RTC should have declared itself barren of 2urisdiction over the action. #ven if
private respondent activel. participated in the proceedings before said court! the doctrine of estoppel cannot still
be properl. invo:ed against him because the -uestion of lac: of 2urisdiction ma. be raised at an.time and at an.
stage of the action.'recedents tell us that as a general rule! the 2urisdiction of a court is not a -uestion of
ac-uiescence as a matter of fact! but an issue of conferment as a matter of la%.

Also! neither %aiver nor estoppel
shall appl. to confer 2urisdiction upon a court! barring highl. meritorious and e&ceptional circumstances. I" any
"au#$ %& $o '( %)*u$(+ $o a *ar$y $a,%n- &u./ .our&( o" a.$%on, *ar$ o" $/( '#a)( &/ou#+ '( *#a.(+ on $/(
.our$ 0/%./ &/a## (n$(r$a%n $/( &u%$, $/(r('y #u##%n- $/( *ar$%(& %n$o '(#%(1%n- $/a$ $/(y *ur&u(+ $/(%r
r()(+%(& %n $/( .orr(.$ "oru). 9nder the rules! it is the dut. of the court to dismiss an action $%henever it
appears that the court has no 2urisdiction over the sub2ect matter.$ @Sec. )! Rule 9! Rules of CourtA Should the
Court render a 2udgment %ithout 2urisdiction! such 2udgment ma. be impeached or annulled for lac: of
2urisdiction @Sec. ;+! Rule 1;)! 0bidA! %ithin ten @1+A .ears from the finalit. of the same.
0ndeed! <...the trial court %as dut.?bound to ta:e 2udicial notice of the parameters of its 2urisdiction and its
failure to do so! ma:es its decision a $la%less$ thing.B
Since a decision of a court %ithout 2urisdiction is null and void! it could logicall. never become final and
e&ecutor.! hence appeal therefrom b. %rit of error %ould be out of the -uestion. Resort b. private respondent to
a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals %as in order .