Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v.

Melicor

Jurisdiction:

FACTS

The Balanes, the private respondents in this case, filed a complaint for therecovery of ownership and
possession as well as removal of construction and damages (moral & exemplary) against Bertuldo Hinog.

It was alleged that the Balanes are the owners of a parcel of land in Bohol, which they have rented
to Bertuldo for 10 years with an annual rental of 100php. Bertuldo, thereafter, constructed a
house of light materials in the said lot.

However, after the expiry of the 10 years, Bertuldo refused to surrender the lot and even claimed
ownership over the same by virtue of a deed of absolute sale executed by one Tomas Pahac, with
the alleged conformity of the Balanes.

T r i a l o n t h e m e r i t s e n s u e d b u t B e r t u l d o d i e d w i t h o u t c o m p l e t i n g h i s evidence.

C o n s e q u e n t l y, B e r t u l d o I I I d e s i g n a t e d A t t y . P e t a l c o r i n t o b e h i s n e w counsel. The
latter filed a motion to expunge the complaint and nullify all proceedings on the ground that the
amount of damages claimed is not stated so the proper docket fee was not paid by the
Balanes hence the court did not acquire jurisdiction. Under the Manchester
Ruling, Non- payment of the correct docket fee is jurisdictional.

The trial court granted the motion but later on reinstated the case after the payment of the correct docket
fee.

Instead of filing for an MR, a supplemental pleading was filed by Atty.Petalcorin appending
therein the Deed of Sale of the lot in question. The trial court denied the supplemental pleading on the
ground that the Deed is a n e w m a t t e r , n e v e r m e n t i o n e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l a n s w e r
p r e p a r e d b y Bertuldos original counsel.

Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition

ISSUE:
WON the petitioners may challenge the courts jurisdiction?
HELD:
NO! After recognizing the jurisdiction of the trial court by seeking affirmative relief in their motion to serve
supplemental pleading upon private respondents, petitioners are effectively barred by estoppel from
challenging the trial court's jurisdiction. If a party invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot thereafter
challenge the court's jurisdiction in the same case. To rule otherwise would amount to speculating on the
fortune of litigation, which is against the policy of the Court. It is worth noting that when Bertuldo
filed his Answer on July 2, 1991, he did not raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction for non-payment
of correct docket fees. Instead ,he based his defense on a claim of ownership and participated in the
proceedings before the trial court. It was only in September 22, 1998 or more than seven years after filing
the answer, and under the auspices of a new counsel, that the issue of jurisdiction was raised for the first
time in the motion to expunge by Bertuldo's heirs.
After Bertuldo vigorously participated in all stages of the case before the trial
court and even invoked the trial court's authority in order to ask for affirmative
relief, petitioners, considering that they merely stepped in tothe shoes of
their predecessor, are effectively barred by estoppel from challenging the
trial court's jurisdiction. Although the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings as the same is conferred bylaw, it is nonetheless settled
that a party may be barred from raising it on ground of laches or estoppel.
Additional:
Issue: WON the non-payment of the proper docket fee at the time of the filing of thecomplaint
automatically causes the dismissal of the action? NO
Ratio: The Court has held that the
Manchester rule
has been modified in
SunInsurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) vs. Asuncion,
which defined the following guidelinesinvolving the payment of docket fees:1. It is not simply the filing
of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee,
that vests atrial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of theaction. Where
the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompaniedby payment of the docket fee, the court may
allow payment of thefees within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the
applicableprescriptive or reglementary period.X X X

Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a

jurisdictionalr e q u i r e m e n t , e v e n i t s n o n - p a y m e n t a t t h e t i m e o f f i l i n g
d o e s n o t automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the
fee is paidwithin the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so
whenthe party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by
the rulesprescribing such payment.[46]Thus, when insufficient filing fees
wereinitially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud
thegovernment, the
Manchester rule
does not apply.