Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 119 views

    Sps. Gonzaga Vs - Ca, Hon. Quirico G. Defensor, and Lucky Homes, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Mharey
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Gonzaga are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court to try their case. The Court affirmed the long-standing doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel, where a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to seek relief and later deny that same court's jurisdiction. Here, the Spouses Gonzaga actively participated in the proceedings in the RTC for two years without raising any issue of jurisdiction. They only raised jurisdiction as an issue after receiving an unfavorable decision, and thus are barred by the doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel from doing so.

    Copyright:

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

    Sps. Gonzaga Vs - Ca, Hon. Quirico G. Defensor, and Lucky Homes, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Mharey
    119 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Gonzaga are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court to try their case. The Court affirmed the long-standing doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel, where a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to seek relief and later deny that same court's jurisdiction. Here, the Spouses Gonzaga actively participated in the proceedings in the RTC for two years without raising any issue of jurisdiction. They only raised jurisdiction as an issue after receiving an unfavorable decision, and thus are barred by the doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel from doing so.

    Original Title

    16 Gonzaga v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Gonzaga are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court to try their case. The Court affirmed the long-standing doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel, where a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to seek relief and later deny that same court's jurisdiction. Here, the Spouses Gonzaga actively participated in the proceedings in the RTC for two years without raising any issue of jurisdiction. They only raised jurisdiction as an issue after receiving an unfavorable decision, and thus are barred by the doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel from doing so.

    Copyright:

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

    Sps. Gonzaga Vs - Ca, Hon. Quirico G. Defensor, and Lucky Homes, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Mharey
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Gonzaga are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court to try their case. The Court affirmed the long-standing doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel, where a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to seek relief and later deny that same court's jurisdiction. Here, the Spouses Gonzaga actively participated in the proceedings in the RTC for two years without raising any issue of jurisdiction. They only raised jurisdiction as an issue after receiving an unfavorable decision, and thus are barred by the doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel from doing so.

    Copyright:

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

    16. COMPARE WITH No.

    15

    SPS. GONZAGA vs.CA, HON. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, and LUCKY HOMES, INC.


    G.R. No. 144025; December 27, 2002

    ISSUE: Whether or not the Spouses Gonzaga are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the
    RTC to try the case.

    RULING: Yes. Supreme Court held that the Sps. Gonzaga are estopped from questioning the
    jurisdiction of the RTC to try the case. Also, the Supremre Court ruled that the doctrine in Tijam v.
    Sibonghanoy, as reiterated in numerous cases, is still controlling. In explaining the concept of
    jurisdiction by estoppel, the Court quoted its decision in said case, to wit:
    "It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative
    relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate, or
    question that same jurisdiction x x x x [T]he question whether the court had jurisdiction
    either of the subject matter of the action or of the parties was not important in such cases
    because the party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the
    court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice can
    not be tolerated–– obviously for reasons of public policy."

    In countless decisions, this Court has consistently held that, while an order or decision
    rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be assailed at any stage, active participation
    in the proceedings in the court which rendered the order or decision will bar such party from
    attacking its jurisdiction. This Court affirmed the rule that a party’s active participation in all stages
    of the case before the trial court, which includes invoking the court’s authority to grant affirmative
    relief, effectively estops such party from later challenging that same court’s jurisdiction.

    In the case at bar, it was petitioners themselves who invoked the jurisdiction of the court a
    quo by instituting an action for reformation of contract against private respondents. It must be
    noted that in the proceedings before the trial court, petitioners vigorously asserted their cause from
    start to finish. Not even once did petitioners ever raise the issue of the court’s jurisdiction during
    the entire proceedings which lasted for two years. It was only after the trial court rendered its
    decision and issued a writ of execution against them in 1998 did petitioners first raise the issue of
    jurisdiction ─ and it was only because said decision was unfavorable to them. Petitioners thus
    effectively waived their right to question the court’s jurisdiction over the case they themselves filed.
    Petition for review is denied.

    You might also like