Rebamonte v. Lucero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case involves two one-hectare portions of Lot No. 1305-A, registered in the name of respondent Guillermo Lucero. Petitioners Spouses Rebamonte claim ownership over these portions based on three alleged unregistered sales: one from Tomasa (mother of Guillermo) on February 5, 1976, and two from Guillermo's sisters, Josefina and Agripina, on May 29, 1976, and June 17, 1980, respectively. Respondents Spouses Lucero filed a Complaint for Recovery of Real Estate Property, Possession, Quieting of Title, Damages, and Attorney's Fees before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacurong City, docketed as Civil Case No. 241, seeking to recover the two-hectare portion allegedly sold by Josefina and Agripina, asserting these deeds were invalid as the sisters had no right to sell the property owned by their parents. Petitioners argued that the sisters were granted rights by their mother as advance inheritance, making the sales valid. Procedural History: The RTC declared the Deeds of Absolute Sale dated May 29, 1976, and June 17, 1980, null and void, ordering petitioners to vacate the two-hectare portion. However, it declared the sale by Tomasa to petitioner Lino on February 5, 1976, valid. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners raised three new arguments for the first time on appeal: (1) lack of jurisdiction of the RTC due to the assessed value of the property falling within the Municipal Trial Court's (MTC) jurisdiction; (2) defective service of summons rendering RTC proceedings void; and (3) failure to effect substitution for the death of respondent Guillermo in 2000, rendering the RTC decision void.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the Complaint filed by the respondents Spouses Lucero. Whether there was defective service of summons, rendering all proceedings conducted by the RTC null and void. Whether the failure to effect substitution for the death of respondent Guillermo in 2000 violated Rule 3, Section 16 of the Rules of Court, rendering the RTC decision null and void. Whether the CA erred in declaring the two Deeds of Absolute Sale null and void.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari, affirming the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioners are estopped from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction due to their active participation in the proceedings for almost three decades without raising the issue. The Court also found no merit in the arguments regarding defective service of summons and failure to effect substitution, as these were also raised for the first time on appeal and did not violate due process. Finally, the Court found no reversible error in the CA's affirmation of the RTC's ruling that the two Deeds of Absolute Sale were null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Jurisdiction: The Court held that while the RTC may have initially lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter based on the assessed value of the property as stated in the complaint (which falls under the MTC's jurisdiction per BP 129, as amended by RA 7691), the petitioners are estopped from raising this ground. This is because the petitioners actively participated in the proceedings before the RTC and CA for almost three decades, filing responsive pleadings, seeking affirmative relief through a counterclaim, and even filing motions for reconsideration and appeals, without ever raising the issue of jurisdiction. The Court cited the seminal case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy and its subsequent interpretations in Amoguis v. Ballado, emphasizing that allowing such a belated challenge after extensive litigation would be unfair and contrary to public policy. The Court stressed that the petitioners' lethargy and ineptitude in failing to raise the issue for 28 years prevent the Court from taking cognizance of their argument on lack of jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of estoppel by laches. On the Issue of Service of Summons: The Court found the argument of defective service of summons to be without merit. It reiterated that voluntary appearance in an action is equivalent to service of summons under Rule 14, Section 20 of the Rules of Court. The petitioners' extensive and active participation in the proceedings before the RTC and CA, including filing pleadings, presenting witnesses, and seeking affirmative relief, clearly demonstrated their voluntary appearance and submission to the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, their claim of a violation of due process due to alleged defective service of summons after almost three decades of litigation was deemed outright nonsense and unmeritorious. On the Issue of Failure to Effect Substitution: The Court dismissed the argument that the failure to substitute the deceased respondent Guillermo rendered the RTC decision null and void. It reiterated the principle that issues not adequately brought to the attention of the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the Court clarified that mere failure to substitute a deceased party is not sufficient ground to nullify a decision unless the party alleging nullity proves an undeniable violation of due process. In this case, there was no allegation that the respondents' right to due process was violated, as they fully participated in the trial. Thus, the petitioners' contention was found to have no merit. On the Issue of the Validity of the Deeds of Absolute Sale: The Court found no reversible error in the CA's affirmation of the RTC's ruling that the two Deeds of Absolute Sale dated May 29, 1976, and June 17, 1980, were null and void. The RTC had factually found that the original owners, Marcos and Tomasa, had no participation in the execution of these deeds and did not authorize Guillermo's sisters, Josefina and Agripina, to sell the property. Consequently, Josefina and Agripina had no legal capacity to transfer ownership of the subject portions. The Court concluded that these deeds were, beyond question, null and void, and that the Spouses Lucero were the absolute and lawful owners of Lot No. 1305-A, less the one-hectare portion validly sold by Tomasa.
Main Doctrine
A party may be estopped from raising the ground of lack of jurisdiction, even if the court initially lacked subject matter jurisdiction, if such party actively participated in the proceedings for an unreasonable length of time without raising the issue, thereby invoking the court's jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief.