Tijam vs Sibonghanoy and Manila Surety and Fidelity Co. Inc.

G.R. No. L-21450 April 15, 1968, J. Dizon

I. Facts
Spouses Serafin and Felicitas commenced a civil case against spouses Sibonghanoy to recover from them a
sum of P1, 908.00 with legal interest. A writ of attachment was issued by the court against the defendants
properties but the same was soon dissolved. After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
and after the same had become final and executory, the court issued a writ of execution against the defendants.
The writ being unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of the writ of execution against the Suretys
bond. Subsequently, the Surety moved to quash the writ on the ground that the same was issued without
summary hearing. This was denied by the RTC. The Surety appealed to the CA but was denied.
This time, the Surety asked for an extension for the filing of the motion for reconsideration. But instead of
filing for a motion for reconsideration, it filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that by virtue of R.A. 296 which is
the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1948, section 88 of which placed within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of inferior courts all civil action where the value of the subject matter does not exceed P2,000.00. The Court
of First Instance therefore has no jurisdiction over the case. The question of jurisdiction was filed by the
Surety only 15 years from the time the action was commenced in the Court of First Instance.
II. Issue
Whether or not the motion to dismiss filed by Surety Company on the ground of lack of jurisdiction should be
granted
III. Ruling
It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to sure affirmative relief against his
opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.
Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse
decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court. The Surety
failed to raise the question of lack of jurisdiction.
When the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the question of the lack of
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the present action by reason of the
sum of money involved but 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.

Figueroa vs People
G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008, J. Nachura
I. Facts
Petitioner was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The RTC found him
guilty. In his appeal before the CA, the petitioner, for the first time, questioned RTCs jurisdiction on the case.
The CA in affirming the decision of the RTC, ruled that the principle of estoppel by laches has already
precluded the petitioner from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTCthe trial went on for 4 years with the
petitioner actively participating therein and without him ever raising the jurisdictional infirmity. The
petitioner, for his part, counters that the lack of jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter may be raised at
any time even for the first time on appeal. As undue delay is further absent herein, the principle of laches will
not be applicable. Hence, this petition.
II. Issue
Whether or not the petitioners motion to dismiss should be granted
III. Ruling
Yes. The Court held that as a general rule, 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 may be invoked to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual
milieu is analogous to that of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. Laches should be clearly present for the Sibonghanoy
doctrine to be applicable, that is, lack of jurisdiction must have been raised so belatedly as to warrant the
presumption that the party entitled to assert it had abandoned or declined to assert it.
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.
Pangilinan vs CA
G.R. No. 117363. December 17, 1999, J. Kapunan
I. Facts
The petitioner was charged with the crime of estafa before the RTC. Under the information, the accused, by
means of false pretenses and misrepresentations, introduced and misrepresented herself that she was instructed
by Mr. Rodolfo Elnar, father of Miss Luzviminda Elnar, a girl 15 years of age, to get one (1) stereo component
and other items totalling an amount on Php 17,450. She took the items to the damage and prejudice of the Mr
and Mrs. Elnar. The RTC convicted the petitioner. On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction but modified the
sentence. A motion for was denied by the CA. A petition for new trial was subsequently lodged by the
petitioner before the CA but was similarly denied. Hence, the present recourse which questions the
jurisdiction of RTC over the case.
II. Issue
Whether or not the petitioner is barred from assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC because of estoppel by
laches

III. Ruling
No. Municipal Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case and not the Regional Trial Court. In our legal system,
the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Whenever the question of
jurisdiction is put to front, courts should not lightly brush aside errors in jurisdiction especially when it is the
liberty of an individual which is at stake. The doctrine laid down in the Tijam case is an exception to and not
the general rule. Estoppel attached to the party assailing the jurisdiction of the court as it was the same party
who sought recourse in the said forum. In the case at bar, appellant cannot in anyway be said to have invoked
the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Union Bank of the Philippines and Desi Tomas. v. People

G.R. No. 192565, Feb. 28, 2012, J. Brion
I. Facts
Union bank filed two complaints for sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin against spouses Eddie
and Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe. The first complaint was filed before the RTC Pasay City in 1998. The
second complaint was filed in 2000 and raffled in the MeTC Pasay City.
In both cases, Desi Tomas executed and signed the Certification against Forum Shopping. Then, she was
charged of deliberately violating Article 183 of the RPC (perjury) "by falsely declaring under oath in the
Certificate against Forum Shopping in the second complaint that she did not commence any other action or
proceeding involving the same issue in another tribunal or agency". The Certification was notarized in Makati
City but was submitted and used in Pasay City, while the Information against Union Bank and Tomas was
filed in Makati.
Tomas filed a Motion to Quash on the grounds that the venue was improperly laid and that the facts do not
constitute an offense. Tomas argued that since it is the Pasay City Court where the Certificate was submitted
and used, it should have the jurisdiction over the case against her, not MeTc Makati City.
The MeTC-Makati City denied the Motion to Quash, ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case since the
Certificate was notarized there and the allegations in the Information sufficiently charged Tomas with perjury.
RTC affirmed the decision of the court a quo. Hence the petition.
II. Issue
Whether or not the proper venue of perjury under Art. 183 of the RPC is the place where the Certificate
against Forum Shopping was notarized or where the Certification was presented to the trial court
III. Ruling
The place where the Certificate was notarized, the MeTC-Makati City, is the proper venue for the criminal
action. The constitutive act of the offense is the making of an affidavit, so, the criminal act is consummated
when the statement containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn before a duly authorized person.
The Court ruled that the crime of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under Art. 183 of
the RPC is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since it is at that time
that all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed. When the crime is committed through false

testimony under oath in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where the
testimony under oath is given.

Foz and Fajardo vs People

G.R. 167764, October 9, 2009, J. Peralta
I. Facts
Petitioners were charged with the crime of libel. Upon arraignment, they were assisted by counsel de parte and
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial thereafter ensued, finding both of them guilty. Petitioners
motion for reconsideration was denied. On appeal, CA affirmed in toto RTCs decision. They then filed a
motion for recon which CA denied. In their petition to the SC, petitioners raise for the first time the issue that
the information charging them with libel did not contain allegations sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the RTC
of Iloilo City.
II. Issue
Whether or not the RTC of Iloilo City has jurisdiction over the offense of libel as charged
III. Ruling
No. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 4363, provides the specific rules as to the venue in cases of written defamation:
The criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations xxx shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission
of the offense.
The allegations in the Information that Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the
City of Iloilo and throughout the region only showed that Iloilo was the place where Panay News was in
considerable circulation but did not establish that the said publication was printed and first published in Iloilo
City.
Considering that the Information failed to allege the venue requirements for a libel case under Article 360, the
Court ruled that the RTC of Iloilo City had no jurisdiction to hear this case. Thus, its decision convicting
petitioners of the crime of libel should be set aside for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to its filing with
the court of competent jurisdiction.

People v. Taroy
G.R. No. 192466, September 7, 2011, J. Abad
I. Facts
The public prosecutor charged the accused with two counts of rape before the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet.
Upon conviction, the accused challenged the Benguet RTCs jurisdiction over the crimes charged, he having
testified that their residence when the alleged offenses took place was in Pucsusan Barangay, Baguio City. The

RTC held that said testimony did not strip the court of jurisdiction since he waived the jurisdictional
requirement. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC holding that the prosecution has sufficiently
established the jurisdiction of the RTC through the testimony of witnesses.
II. Issue
Whether or not RTC Benguet has jurisdiction over the case
III. Ruling
Yes. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can neither be waived nor subjected to stipulation. The right
venue must exist as a matter of law. Thus, for territorial jurisdiction to attach, the criminal action must be
instituted and tried in the proper court of the municipality, city, or province where the offense was committed
or where any of its essential ingredients took place.
The uncorroborated assertion of Taroy that the offense was committed in Baguio cannot overturn the
testimonies of the witnesses and the allegations in the complaint. Besides, Taroy has already admitted in the
pre-trial that the RTC of Benguet has jurisdiction.