BVR CONSULTING INC
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • I.T. SOLUTIONS
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • INTERNAL AUDIT
  • BVR ACCOUNTING
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • INTERNAL AUDIT
  • CONTACT US
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer. 
this webpage is
 primarily designed to assist students of law in their studies. It is merely a tool. The use of our Services does not guarantee success in obtaining a law degree nor in passing the Bar Exams. we makes no warranties or representations of any kind, whether expressed or implied for the Services provided. The cases, laws, and other publications found in this site are of public domain, collected from public sources such as the Supreme Court online library. The content however have been heavily modified, formatted, and optimized for better user experience, and are no longer perfect copies of their original. we gives no warranty for the accuracy or the completeness of the materials. This site also contains materials published by the students, professors, lawyers, and other users of the our Services. 


Tijam vs Sibonghanoy

10/1/2021

0 Comments

 
Tijam vs Sibonghanoy
[G.R. No. L-21450. April 15, 1968]
Facts: On July 19, 1948 petitioners Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog commenced a civil case in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against the spouses Magdaleno Sibonghanoy and Lucia Baguioto to recover the sum of P1,908.00, plus legal interests and additional costs. Later, respondent company Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. was referred to by the spouses Sibonghanoy as their surety. About a month prior to the filing of the complaint, the Judiciary Act of 1948 took effect, depriving the Court of First Instance of original jurisdiction over cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, is not more than P2,000.00. (Secs. 44[c] and 86[b], R.A. No. 296.). Despite the enactment of RA 296, throughout the resolution of the case over the next fifteen years in the Cebu CFI and later the court of appeals, respondent Surety did not dispute the jurisdiction of the courts, whether directly or indirectly. Later, in January 1963 receiving the decision of the CA affirming the CFI’s writ of execution, respondent filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the petitioner’s action was filed just one month after the enactment of date RA 296, and that Section 88 of said Act placed within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil actions where the value of the subject-matter or the amount of the demand does not exceed P2,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs; that the CFI therefore had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case.

Issue: W/N Surety is correct in asserting that CFI had no jurisdiction over the case due to the enactment of RA 296?

Held:
No. CA ruling upheld. 
A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reasons. Estoppel is divided into either estoppel in pais, or 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. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to sure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. In the current case, from the time the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the CFI since the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally raised the question of jurisdiction.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • I.T. SOLUTIONS
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • INTERNAL AUDIT
  • BVR ACCOUNTING
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • INTERNAL AUDIT
  • CONTACT US
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG