Case Digest: Rogales va IAC, G.R. No. L-65022

Rogales vs IAC, GR L-65022, January 31, 1981, 199

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

This is a petition for review regarding the final and executory judgment rendered by the City Court (now Metropolitan Trial Court) of Manila in Civil Case No. 057662-CV on ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioners contend that the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case for failure of respondent Jose Planas, plaintiff therein, to avail of the barangay conciliation process before the filing of the case in court, as required by P.D. 1508, otherwise known as the "Katarungang Pambarangay Law."

The spouses Apolinar R. Royales and Presentacion Gregorio, petitioners herein, are the lessees of a residential house owned by respondent Jose Planas located at No. 1866 Int. I, Oroquieta St., Manila. On August 25, 1980, Planas instituted before the then City Court of Manila an ejectment suit against petitioners.

On November 10, 1981, when neither petitioners nor their counsel appeared at the hearing despite due notice, the case, on motion of respondent Planas, was considered submitted for decision. The court ordered the defendants and all persons holding or claiming under them to immediately vacate the house, subject of this action and restore possession thereof to the plaintiff and to pay to the defendant the sum of P1,000.00 as and for attorney's fees; and the costs of suit.

After the decision had become final and executory, Planas filed a motion for execution and the same was granted by the court. Execution of the judgment was however restrained by the Regional Trial Court of Manila upon the filing by petitioners of a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, wherein they assailed the said decision on ground of lack of jurisdiction, allegedly arising from failure of respondent Planas to submit the dispute to the Barangay Lupon for conciliation.

After due hearing, the Regional Trial Court handed down a decision declaring the judgment of the trial court null and void for having been rendered without jurisdiction. Upon denial of motion for reconsideration by the defendant, respondent, Planas appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which on July 12, 1982 promulgated a decision vacating the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, thus confirming the decision of the City Court of Manila. Unable to obtain a reconsideration thereof, petitioners filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petition is meritorious.

RULING

No, the petition is void of merit.

Under the law and existing jurisprudence, 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 (Dean vs. Dean, 136 Or. 694, 86, A.L.R. 79).

In this case, it is clear that the petitioner only raised the issue of court’s jurisdiction after the Municipal Trial Court’s decision has been final and executory. They did not object to it on the onset of trial instead they still put the respondent to the witness stand to be cross-examined. These event clearly is just a way to secure affirmative relief against their opponent.