Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Sps. Rene Gonzaga and Lerio Gonzaga vs. Ca, Hon. Quirico G. Defensor, and Lucky Homes, Inc

    Uploaded by

    zane
    Petitioners filed a case for reformation of contract with the Regional Trial Court. The RTC dismissed the case, and the Court of Appeals denied the petition for annulment of judgment. Petitioners argued the RTC did not have jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court ruled against them, finding that by actively participating in the lower court proceedings without raising jurisdiction, petitioners were estopped from questioning jurisdiction after receiving an unfavorable ruling. The Supreme Court applied the jurisprudential doctrine of estoppel from an earlier case.

    Copyright:

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

    Sps. Rene Gonzaga and Lerio Gonzaga vs. Ca, Hon. Quirico G. Defensor, and Lucky Homes, Inc

    Uploaded by

    zane
    81 views6 pages
    Petitioners filed a case for reformation of contract with the Regional Trial Court. The RTC dismissed the case, and the Court of Appeals denied the petition for annulment of judgment. Petitioners argued the RTC did not have jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court ruled against them, finding that by actively participating in the lower court proceedings without raising jurisdiction, petitioners were estopped from questioning jurisdiction after receiving an unfavorable ruling. The Supreme Court applied the jurisprudential doctrine of estoppel from an earlier case.

    Original Title

    16.)GONZAGA VS. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners filed a case for reformation of contract with the Regional Trial Court. The RTC dismissed the case, and the Court of Appeals denied the petition for annulment of judgment. Petitioners argued the RTC did not have jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court ruled against them, finding that by actively participating in the lower court proceedings without raising jurisdiction, petitioners were estopped from questioning jurisdiction after receiving an unfavorable ruling. The Supreme Court applied the jurisprudential doctrine of estoppel from an earlier case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    81 views6 pages

    Sps. Rene Gonzaga and Lerio Gonzaga vs. Ca, Hon. Quirico G. Defensor, and Lucky Homes, Inc

    Uploaded by

    zane
    Petitioners filed a case for reformation of contract with the Regional Trial Court. The RTC dismissed the case, and the Court of Appeals denied the petition for annulment of judgment. Petitioners argued the RTC did not have jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court ruled against them, finding that by actively participating in the lower court proceedings without raising jurisdiction, petitioners were estopped from questioning jurisdiction after receiving an unfavorable ruling. The Supreme Court applied the jurisprudential doctrine of estoppel from an earlier case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    SPS.

     RENE GONZAGA and


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

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


    ISSUE

    W/N petitioners are estopped from


    questioning the jurisdiction of the lower
    court to try the case.
    PETITIONER

    Reformation of contract
    -filed with the RTC
    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COURT OF APPEALS

    RTC dismissed the case for lack of merit. Court of Appeals denied the petition for
    annulment of judgment, relying mainly on
    the jurisprudential doctrine of estoppel as
    laid down in the case of Tijam vs.
    Sibonghanoy.

    Petitioners filed before the Court of Appeals Petitioners claimed that the recent decisions
    a petition for annulment of judgment, of this Court have already abandoned the
    premised on the ground that the trial court doctrine laid down in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy,
    had no jurisdiction to try and decide the hence, CA erred in dismissing the petition by
    case as it was vested in the Housing and applying the principle of estoppel, even if the
    Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction to
    pursuant to PD 957 (The Subdivision and decide the case.  
    Condominium Buyers Protective Decree).
    SUPREME COURT
    (Rationale)
    The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioner.
    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.
    Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy:
    "A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for
    different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record, and
    of estoppel by laches.
    ”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.”
    SUPREME COURT
    (Application to the case)

    In the case at bar, it was petitioners themselves who invoked the jurisdiction of the
    court by instituting an action for reformation of contract against private
    respondents. It appears 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.

    You might also like