University of the Philippines 16 Tijam vs Sibonghanoy

College of Law Evening 2021

Law 125 (Civil Procedure) Estoppel Dizon, J.

Facts
(1) Civil Case No. R-660, a suit for collection of a sum of money (₱1, 908.00) with legal interest from the
date of the filing of the complaint until full payment, was filed by Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog
(“Spouses Tijam”) in the Court of First Instance of Cebu (“CFI”) against Magdaleno Sibonghanoy and
Lucia Baguio (“Spouses Sibonghanoy). The suit was filed on July 19, 1948; barely one month after the
effectivity of the Republic Act No. 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948).
(2) A writ of attachment was issued against the properties of Spouses Sibonghanoy, however, the same was
discharged upon the filing by the defendant spouses of a bond subscribed by Manila Surety & Fidelity
Co., Inc (“Manila Surety”).
(3) The CFI rendered judgment in favor of Spouses Tijam, and after the same had become final and
executory, upon motion of the plaintiff spouses, the CFI issued a writ of execution against defendant
spouses.
(4) With the writ of execution against Spouses Sibonghanoy having been returned unsatisfied, Spouses
Tijam moved for the issuance of execution against Manila Surety to enforce the obligation of the bond.
However, this motion was denied upon Manila Surety’s opposition, basing upon the ground that there
was no showing that a demand had been made by the plaintiff spouses to the bonding company for
payment of the amount due under the judgment.
(5) Spouses Tijam thereafter made the necessary demand upon the surety for the satisfaction of the
judgment, and upon the latter’s failure to pay the amount due, the plaintiff spouses again filed a motion
(October 13, 1957) for the issuance of a writ of execution against the surety, with notice of hearing
(November 2, 1957). The surety received a copy of the motion and notice of hearing on October 31,
1957.
(6) When the motion was called on November 2, 1957, the surety’s counsel asked that he be given time
within which to answer the motion. The Court granted the surety a period of five (5) days within which to
answer the motion. However, since Manila Surety’s counsel failed to file any answer or objection within
the extension period granted, the Court issued an order granting plaintiff spouses’ motion for execution
against the surety. The corresponding writ was issued on December 12, 1957.
(7) Manila Surety filed, on December 24, 1957, a motion to quash the writ of execution on the ground that
the same was issued without the required summary hearing. This was denied by order of February 10,
1958. The surety subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied.
(8) The surety appealed the case to the Court of Appeals (“CA”) where none of the assignment of errors
submitted to the appellate court raised the question of lack of jurisdiction. The CA, on December 11,
1962, affirmed the orders appealed from.
(9) On January 8, 1963, five (5) days after the surety received notice of the CA’s decision, it filed a motion
asking for extension of time within which to file a motion for reconsideration; this motion was granted by
the CA. Two (2) days later, the surety filed a pleading entitled MOTION TO DISMISS alleging that the
CFI had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case,
(10) The surety contends that since the plaintiff spouses’ action was filed with the CFI on July 19,
1948, which was more or less a month after the effectivity of the Judiciary Act of 1948, Section 88 of
which placed the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions where the value of the subject-
matter or the amount of the demand does not exceed ₱2,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs to
inferior courts.
(11) The CA certified the case to the Supreme Court (SC) in consideration of the fact that the latter
court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior court is in
issue.

Issues
Issue Resolution
W/N the Court of First Instance of Cebu The Supreme Court ruled that while it is an undisputed fact that
was without jurisdiction to try and decide the action commenced by Spouses Tijam against Spouses
the case against the Spouses Sibonghanoy which was for the recovery of the sum of ₱1, 908.00
only – an amount within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior
 Sibonghanoy for the recovery of the sum courts in accordance with the provisions of the Judiciary Act of
of ₱1, 908.00 1948, the surety however, is now barred by laches from invoking
the plea of lack of jurisdiction to annul the decision of the CFI. The
SC took note of the fact that from the date of the filing of the action,
it took the surety fifteen (15) years before it filed its motion to
dismiss, raising the question of lack of jurisdiction for the first time.

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, of estoppel by deed or by record and of 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.

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.

Ruling
UPON ALL THE FOREGOING, the orders appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant
Manila Surety and Fidelity Company, Inc.