In a case involving a property dispute, the Supreme Court ruled that a party actively participating in a trial at a Regional Trial Court (RTC) is estopped from later questioning that court’s jurisdiction. This decision emphasizes that if a court initially has jurisdiction, a party cannot later claim the court lacked authority after actively participating in the proceedings. This principle ensures fairness and prevents parties from strategically challenging jurisdiction only after receiving an unfavorable judgment.

Mortgaged Without Consent: Can a Bank Claim Jurisdiction After Years of Litigation?

The case of Atty. Restituto G. Cudiamat, Erlinda P. Cudiamat and Corazon D. Cudiamat vs. Batangas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., revolves around a property in Balayan, Batangas, co-owned by Atty. Restituto Cudiamat and his brother Perfecto. Perfecto, without Restituto’s knowledge or consent, mortgaged the property to Batangas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. (the bank) using a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly signed by Restituto. When Restituto learned of the foreclosure, he informed the bank that he never authorized the mortgage. Subsequently, after Perfecto’s death, Restituto and Corazon Cudiamat filed a case for quieting of title against the bank, arguing the mortgage was invalid. The bank countered that the Balayan RTC lacked jurisdiction because it was under receivership and liquidation by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), with liquidation proceedings pending before the Nasugbu RTC. The pivotal legal question was whether the bank, after actively participating in the Balayan RTC trial, could later challenge its jurisdiction.

The Balayan RTC initially ruled in favor of the Cudiamats, but the Court of Appeals reversed, stating the Balayan RTC should have deferred to the Nasugbu RTC acting as a liquidation court. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of **jurisdiction by estoppel**. This legal concept prevents a party from challenging a court’s jurisdiction after actively participating in proceedings and benefiting from the opportunity to present their case. The court referenced Lozon v. NLRC, which clarifies that if a lower court had jurisdiction, a party who induced the court to adopt a particular theory cannot later argue the court lacked jurisdiction.

The operation of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends on whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same “must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by the consent of the parties or by estoppel.” However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position – that the lower court had jurisdiction.

In this case, the Balayan RTC possessed original jurisdiction over the action for quieting of title when the case was filed. The Nasugbu RTC only assumed jurisdiction later, upon PDIC’s petition for assistance in liquidation. The Supreme Court further reasoned that requiring the petitioners to refile their claims in the Nasugbu RTC would be futile, considering the Balayan RTC had already conducted a full trial and rendered a decision. This echoes the sentiment in Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, where the Court declined to apply the general rule requiring all claims against an insolvent bank to be filed in liquidation proceedings, particularly when it would be an exercise in futility, considering the specific circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court considered the advanced age of petitioner Restituto Cudiamat and the death of his wife Erlinda during the case’s pendency. Forcing Restituto, residing in Ozamis City, to relitigate the case in Nasugbu RTC would impose an undue burden. Therefore, the Court found sufficient grounds to apply the exception articulated in Valenzuela. It’s important to note that while lack of subject matter jurisdiction can generally be raised at any stage, even on appeal, this principle is not absolute. The application of **estoppel by laches** can prevent a party from raising the issue of jurisdiction if they have actively participated in the proceedings and only raise the issue after an unfavorable judgment.

The Court’s decision underscores the importance of timely challenging jurisdiction and the consequences of actively participating in a trial. The bank’s active involvement in the Balayan RTC proceedings, without initially questioning its jurisdiction, ultimately prevented it from later challenging the court’s authority. This ruling serves as a reminder that while jurisdictional challenges are generally allowed at any stage, the principle of estoppel can operate as an exception, especially when a party has availed itself of the court’s processes and only raises the issue after an adverse decision. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the need for fairness and efficiency in legal proceedings, preventing parties from strategically manipulating jurisdictional issues to their advantage.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a party (the bank) could challenge the jurisdiction of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) after actively participating in the trial proceedings. The bank argued that because it was under liquidation, only the liquidation court had jurisdiction.
What is jurisdiction by estoppel?	Jurisdiction by estoppel prevents a party from challenging a court’s jurisdiction if they have actively participated in the proceedings, presented their case, and only raise the jurisdictional issue after receiving an unfavorable outcome. It is based on the principle that a party should not benefit from their own inconsistent conduct.
When does the principle of estoppel apply to jurisdictional questions?	Estoppel applies when the lower court originally had jurisdiction over the subject matter. If the court lacked jurisdiction from the beginning, estoppel generally does not apply, as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or estoppel.
What was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court based its decision on the principle of jurisdiction by estoppel. Because the bank actively participated in the Balayan RTC trial, it was estopped from later claiming that the court lacked jurisdiction, especially after an unfavorable decision.
What is the significance of the Lozon v. NLRC case in this ruling?	The Lozon v. NLRC case provides the legal framework for understanding when estoppel applies to jurisdictional questions. It clarifies that if a court had jurisdiction, a party cannot induce the court to adopt a theory and then later challenge its jurisdiction.
Why did the Supreme Court reinstate the Balayan RTC’s decision?	The Supreme Court reinstated the Balayan RTC’s decision because the bank was estopped from challenging its jurisdiction, and requiring the petitioners to refile the case in the liquidation court would be an exercise in futility. The Balayan RTC had already conducted a full trial and rendered a judgment.
What were the considerations regarding the petitioners’ circumstances?	The Supreme Court considered the advanced age and health of the petitioners, particularly Restituto Cudiamat, and the death of his wife during the case’s pendency. Requiring him to relitigate the case in a different court would impose an undue burden.
What is the practical implication of this case for litigants?	The practical implication is that litigants must promptly raise any jurisdictional objections they have. Actively participating in a trial without challenging jurisdiction can prevent them from raising the issue later, especially after an unfavorable decision.

This case illustrates the importance of understanding jurisdictional rules and the potential consequences of actively participating in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that fairness and efficiency are paramount in the administration of justice. Parties cannot strategically challenge jurisdiction after availing themselves of the court’s processes and only upon receiving an adverse outcome.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Cudiamat v. Batangas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 182403, March 09, 2010