Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    Tijam V Sibonghanoy

    Uploaded by

    BGod
    1) Tijam filed a collection suit against Sibonghanoy in 1948 to recover P1,908. A writ of attachment was issued but dissolved upon a counter-bond filed by Sibonghanoy and Surety. 2) In 1963, Surety filed to dismiss alleging the court lacked jurisdiction due to a 1948 law change. 3) The court ruled Surety could have raised the jurisdiction issue earlier but failed to do so for an unreasonable time, showing laches. As Surety actively participated until an adverse decision, it was now barred from invoking the jurisdiction issue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tijam V Sibonghanoy

    Uploaded by

    BGod
    73 views1 page
    1) Tijam filed a collection suit against Sibonghanoy in 1948 to recover P1,908. A writ of attachment was issued but dissolved upon a counter-bond filed by Sibonghanoy and Surety. 2) In 1963, Surety filed to dismiss alleging the court lacked jurisdiction due to a 1948 law change. 3) The court ruled Surety could have raised the jurisdiction issue earlier but failed to do so for an unreasonable time, showing laches. As Surety actively participated until an adverse decision, it was now barred from invoking the jurisdiction issue.

    Original Title

    tijam v sibonghanoy.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Tijam filed a collection suit against Sibonghanoy in 1948 to recover P1,908. A writ of attachment was issued but dissolved upon a counter-bond filed by Sibonghanoy and Surety. 2) In 1963, Surety filed to dismiss alleging the court lacked jurisdiction due to a 1948 law change. 3) The court ruled Surety could have raised the jurisdiction issue earlier but failed to do so for an unreasonable time, showing laches. As Surety actively participated until an adverse decision, it was now barred from invoking the jurisdiction issue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views1 page

    Tijam V Sibonghanoy

    Uploaded by

    BGod
    1) Tijam filed a collection suit against Sibonghanoy in 1948 to recover P1,908. A writ of attachment was issued but dissolved upon a counter-bond filed by Sibonghanoy and Surety. 2) In 1963, Surety filed to dismiss alleging the court lacked jurisdiction due to a 1948 law change. 3) The court ruled Surety could have raised the jurisdiction issue earlier but failed to do so for an unreasonable time, showing laches. As Surety actively participated until an adverse decision, it was now barred from invoking the jurisdiction issue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    2. Tijam v.

    Sibonghanoy
    G.R. No. L-21450 | April 15, 1968 | Laches
    Cassandra Coloso

    DOCTRINE: A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and
    for different reasons, such as estoppel by laches. Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect,
    for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due
    diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right
    within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
    abandoned it or declined to assert it.

    FACTS: Tijam (petitioner) filed a suit for collection of money against Sibonghanoy (defendant)
    for the recovery of the sum of P1,908. A writ of attachment was issued against Sibonghanoy’s
    properties, but the same was soon dissolved upon the filing of a counter-bond by defendants and
    the Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc (Surety), which means that Surety now has the obligation
    to pay the sum.

    The suit for collection of money was originally instituted in the Court of First Instance of Cebu
    on July 19, 1948. But about a month prior to the filing of the complaint, the Judiciary Act of
    1948 took effect, depriving the Court of First Instance of original jurisdiction over cases in which
    the demand is not more than P2,000.00. Hence, on January 12, 1963, Surety filed a motion to
    dismiss alleging that the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the collection suit should be dismissed on the ground of lack of
    jurisdiction (NO)

    RULING: Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law,
    and as the lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the
    objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However, considering the facts and
    circumstances of the present case, the Surety is now barred by laches from invoking this plea at
    this late hour for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case with its active
    participation. Laches is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to
    do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. The facts of
    this case show that the Surety could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the CFI
    to take cognizance of the present action. Instead, 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. 

    You might also like