TIJAM V SIBONGHANOY

(Exception to the rule that filing a MTC on the ground of Lack of Jurisdiction over the SM can be made at any stage of the
proceedings. Anchored in the Principle of Estoppel)

FACTS:

Spouses Tijam filed an action before CFI (now RTC) of Cebu for the recovery of P1,908 + legal interest from
Spouses Sibongahanoy. As prayed for in the complaint, writ of attachment was issued by the court against defendants
properties which was dissolved upon filing of the counter-bond by the defendant spouses and Manila Surety and Fidelity
Co (Surety). The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, a writ of execution was issued against the defendant. The plaintiffs
moved for the execution of the writ against the defendants. The writ having been returned unsatisfied moved for the
issuance of the writ against the surety against which the surety filed an opposition and prayed not only that the motion
for execution be denied but also an affirmative relief that they be relieved of liability against the counter bound. The
court denied the motion of the plaintiff on the ground that there was no demand made against the surety. Plaintiff
complied with the necessary demand and filed a 2nd motion for execution. On the date of the hearing the Surety through
its counsel moved for the extension of time to file their answer and was granted. Upon failing to file an answer the court
ganted the motion for execution and the said writ was issued. The Surety moved to quash the writ but was denied, they
appealed TO CA WITHOUT RAISING THE ISSUE ON LACK OF JURISDICTION. CA affirmed the appealed decision. Surety
then filed Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction against CFI Cebu in view of the effectivity of Judiciary
Act of 1948 a month before the filing of the petition for recovery. Act placed original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior
courts all civil actions for demands not exceeding 2,000 exclusive of interest. CA set aside its earlier decision and
referred the case to SC since it has exclusive jurisdiction over "all cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior court is in
issue.

ISSUE:
W/N the Surety can still question the courts lack of jurisdiction over the case.
RULING:
No, though it is clear that the case is outside the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial of Cebu, defendants were
estopped from questioning the court's jurisdiction.
The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party, it could have raised the question
of the lack of jurisdiction [it only raised the question of jurisdiction after 15 years] of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
to take cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in
force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the
proceedings in the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain
affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse decision was
rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we to sanction such
conduct on its part, We would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings had in the present case since it was
commenced and compel the judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once more. The inequity and unfairness of this is
not only patent but revolting."
Moreover, adds the Court, "we frown upon the 'undesirable practice' of a party submitting his case for decision and then
accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse,"