Ballesteros v Abion

GR no. 143361, Feb. 9, 2006

FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the July 15, 1999 decision of the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City, Branch 37,
in Civil Case No. 2917.
The property subject of the petition is a two-door, three-story commercial building and the 229
sq.m. parcel of land on which it stands. The property was originally owned by Ruperto Ensano,
as evidenced by TCT No. 6178. Ownership was subsequently transferred to the Development
Bank of the Philippines (DBP) which, in turn, sold the property to Dr. Rodolfo Vargas in a deed
of absolute sale dated March 30, 1988. Despite these transfers of ownership, however, the
property was registered in the names of DBP and Dr. Vargas (TCT Nos. 941 and 942,
respectively) only on February 21, 1996. Petitioner asserts that the Municipal Trial Court in the
Cities (MTCC) had no jurisdiction to try the case because the complaint did not allege that he
was withholding possession of the property beyond the expiration of the lease period and that,
in violation of Rule 70, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, respondent failed to establish a cause of
action by omitting to allege that demand to vacate was made for failure to pay the rent or
comply with the conditions of the contract. We disagree. Furthermore, it is also worthy to note
that, in his motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision, petitioner explicitly prayed that the
"MTCC decision be affirmed." Since he actively participated in the proceedings before the
MTCC and in fact later sought the affirmation of its decision, he in effect recognized its
jurisdiction and he should now be estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of that court. In
other words, petitioner cannot now assail the jurisdiction of the MTCC after voluntarily
submitting himself to its proceedings.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court (MTCC of Iriga City, Br. 2) had jurisdiction to try the case?

HELD/RATIO:
The Supreme Court that the Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction over the case. In the motion
for reconsideration of the RTC decision, petitioner explicitly prayed that the MTCC’s decision be
affirmed. In effect, he recognized the jurisdiction of the said court and should be estopped from
challenging the questioning of the MTCC’s jurisdiction. The actual participation of the petitioner
would also be a strong manifestation of his recognition of the court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme
Court held that while lack of jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a party’s active
participation in the proceeding before a court without jurisdiction will estoppe such party from
assailing suck lack of jurisdiction.
The petition was denied by the court, while the decision of the court of appeals was affirmed
with modification as the attorney’s fees were deleted.