Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Lu Vs Lu YM - G.R. No. 153690

    Uploaded by

    Karla ßallesteros
    This document is a case digest for two consolidated cases involving a dispute between family members over a corporation. The case discusses issues of jurisdiction and estoppel. Specifically, it examines whether parties can be estopped from questioning a court's jurisdiction if they participated in the trial court proceedings. The Supreme Court rules that lack of jurisdiction can generally be raised at any time, but there is an exception if there is a finding of laches, which did not apply in this case as the jurisdictional issue was raised throughout the legal proceedings.

    Copyright:

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

    Lu Vs Lu YM - G.R. No. 153690

    Uploaded by

    Karla ßallesteros
    81 views2 pages
    This document is a case digest for two consolidated cases involving a dispute between family members over a corporation. The case discusses issues of jurisdiction and estoppel. Specifically, it examines whether parties can be estopped from questioning a court's jurisdiction if they participated in the trial court proceedings. The Supreme Court rules that lack of jurisdiction can generally be raised at any time, but there is an exception if there is a finding of laches, which did not apply in this case as the jurisdictional issue was raised throughout the legal proceedings.

    Original Title

    Lu vs Lu YM - G.R. No. 153690

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a case digest for two consolidated cases involving a dispute between family members over a corporation. The case discusses issues of jurisdiction and estoppel. Specifically, it examines whether parties can be estopped from questioning a court's jurisdiction if they participated in the trial court proceedings. The Supreme Court rules that lack of jurisdiction can generally be raised at any time, but there is an exception if there is a finding of laches, which did not apply in this case as the jurisdictional issue was raised throughout the legal proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    81 views2 pages

    Lu Vs Lu YM - G.R. No. 153690

    Uploaded by

    Karla ßallesteros
    This document is a case digest for two consolidated cases involving a dispute between family members over a corporation. The case discusses issues of jurisdiction and estoppel. Specifically, it examines whether parties can be estopped from questioning a court's jurisdiction if they participated in the trial court proceedings. The Supreme Court rules that lack of jurisdiction can generally be raised at any time, but there is an exception if there is a finding of laches, which did not apply in this case as the jurisdictional issue was raised throughout the legal proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Ballesteros, Angela Karla C.

    17 – 16125
    Criminal Procedure 2C
    Case Digest: Week 2

    G.R. No. 153690 August 4, 2009

    DAVID LU, Petitioner,

    vs.

    PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, ET. AL. & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
    Respondents.

    x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

    G.R. No. 157381

    PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, JOHN LU YM, KELLY LU YM, and LUDO &
    LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORP., Petitioners,

    vs.

    DAVID LU, Respondent.

    x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

    G.R. No. 170889

    JOHN LU YM and LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner,

    vs.

    THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS OF CEBU CITY (former Twentieth Division), DAVID LU, ROSA GO, SILVANO
    LUDO & CL CORPORATION, Respondents.

    NACHURA, J.:

    FACTS:
    ISSUE:

    RULING:

    Anent the issue of estoppel, we earlier ruled that the movants are barred from questioning the
    jurisdiction of the trial court because of their participation in the proceedings therein. In passing upon
    this issue, we take heed from the pronouncement of this Court in the recent case Vargas v. Caminas:16
    The Court finds that Tijam is not applicable in the present case. The general rule is that lack of
    jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. In Calimlim v. Ramirez, the Court
    stated that Tijam is an exception to the general rule because of the presence of laches:

    A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is
    that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be
    conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any
    stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. This doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements
    which stemmed principally from the ruling in the cited case of [Tijam]. It is to be regretted, however,
    that the holding in said case had been applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated
    therein. The exceptional circumstance involved in [Tijam] which justified the departure from the
    accepted concept of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has been ignored and, instead a blanket
    doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed ruling in [Tijam] not as the exception,
    but rather the general rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle that the issue
    of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.

    In Tijam, the lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed almost fifteen
    (15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered. Hence, the Court ruled that the issue of
    jurisdiction may no longer be raised for being barred by laches.lawph!1

    The circumstances of the present case are different from Tijam. Spouses Vargas raised the issue of
    jurisdiction before the trial court rendered its decision. They continued to raise the issue in their appeal
    before the Court of Appeals and this Court. Hence, it cannot be said that laches has set in. The exception
    in Tijam finds no application in this case and the general rule must apply, that the question of
    jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Spouses Vargas are therefore not
    estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court.17

    You might also like