Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy

A party who actively invokes a court's jurisdiction to seek affirmative relief is barred by laches from later impugning that same jurisdiction after receiving an adverse decision.

Republic Act No. 296 (the Judiciary Act of 1948) took effect on June 17, 1948, stripping Courts of First Instance of original jurisdiction over civil actions where the demand did not exceed P2,000. Barely a month later, the Tijam spouses filed their collection suit for P1,908 in the CFI Cebu, a procedural oversight that went unchallenged by any party for 15 years.

• Original Filing: Court of First Instance of Cebu, Civil Case No. R-660
• Lower Court Decision: CFI rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs; subsequently issued a writ of execution against the surety's counter-bond after the writ against the defendants was returned unsatisfied.
• Appeal: Surety appealed to the CA from the CFI orders denying its motion to quash the writ of execution.
• CA Decision: CA affirmed the CFI orders on December 11, 1962.
• SC Action: The CA certified the case to the SC after the surety raised the issue of the CFI's lack of jurisdiction in a post-decision motion to dismiss, as the SC has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the jurisdiction of inferior courts.

• The Collection Suit: On July 19, 1948, the Tijam spouses filed a suit for collection of P1,908 against the Sibonghanoy spouses in the CFI Cebu.
• The Counter-bond: A writ of attachment was issued against the defendants' properties. On July 31, 1948, Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. filed a counter-bond to dissolve the attachment, making it a quasi-party to the case.
• Judgment and First Execution Attempt: After trial, the CFI ruled in favor of the Tijams. The writ of execution against the Sibonghanoy spouses was returned unsatisfied. The Tijams moved for execution against the surety's counter-bond.
• Surety's Opposition: Manila Surety opposed the first motion, citing failure to prosecute and absence of prior demand, but did not raise lack of jurisdiction. The CFI denied the motion solely for lack of prior demand.
• Second Motion for Execution: After demand was made and the surety failed to pay, the Tijams filed a second motion for execution. The surety's counsel asked for time to file an answer but failed to do so. The CFI granted the motion and issued the writ.
• Motion to Quash: Manila Surety moved to quash the writ, arguing there was no summary hearing as required by Rule 59, Sec 17. The CFI denied the motion and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
• Belated Jurisdictional Challenge: Manila Surety appealed to the CA, raising only the summary hearing issue. After the CA affirmed the CFI on December 11, 1962, the surety filed a motion to dismiss on January 12, 1963—almost 15 years after the case began—claiming for the first time that the CFI never had jurisdiction over the P1,908 claim under RA 296.

• The surety is barred by laches from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction after actively participating in the case for 15 years and raising it only after receiving an adverse decision.
• The summary hearing requirement under Rule 59, Sec 17 was satisfied because the surety was notified, its counsel appeared, and it was given time to file an opposition but failed to do so.
• A separate judgment against the surety is not required for execution against the bond; the liability automatically attaches upon return of unsatisfied execution against the principal.

• The CFI lacked original jurisdiction over the case because the P1,908 demand fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts per Secs. 44(c) and 86(b) of RA 296.
• The CFI erred in issuing the writ of execution against the surety without the summary hearing mandated by Sec 17, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court.
• A separate judgment against the surety is necessary to hold it liable on the bond.

• Procedural Issues: Whether a party is barred by laches from questioning a court's lack of jurisdiction after actively invoking that court's jurisdiction and raising the issue only after an adverse decision.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the CFI complied with the summary hearing requirement under Sec 17, Rule 59 before issuing a writ of execution against the surety bond.

• Procedural: Yes, the surety is barred by laches. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and lack of it can generally be raised at any stage, but the SC will not tolerate the undesirable practice of a party submitting a case for decision and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction only when the decision is adverse. The surety actively participated in the CFI and CA for almost 15 years, seeking affirmative relief, and only questioned jurisdiction after the CA ruled against it. Allowing this would render 15 years of proceedings useless and force the plaintiffs to start over, which is patent and revolting inequity.
• Substantive: Yes, the CFI complied with the summary hearing requirement. A summary hearing is not a formal trial but a procedure to resolve a question with dispatch. The essential requirement is that the defendant is notified and given an opportunity to be heard. The surety was notified of the motion and hearing date, its counsel appeared, and it was granted time to file an answer. By failing to file an answer and agreeing to submit the incident for resolution, the surety was not deprived of its day in court. Furthermore, a separate judgment against the surety is unnecessary; under Sec 12 of Rule 59, the bond stands in place of the released property, and liability automatically attaches when execution against the principal is returned unsatisfied.

• Laches — 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 has abandoned or declined to assert it. Based on public policy discouraging stale claims, it is principally a question of inequity, not merely time. Applied to bar the surety from raising lack of jurisdiction after 15 years of active participation.
• Estoppel to question jurisdiction — A party cannot invoke a court's jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. Applied to the surety, which sought affirmative relief from the CFI and CA but attacked their jurisdiction only after receiving an adverse decision.

• Section 88 (Secs. 44[c] and 86[b]), Republic Act No. 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948) — Placed within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil actions where the demand does not exceed P2,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Applied to establish that the CFI indeed lacked jurisdiction over the original P1,908 claim, though the surety was estopped from raising it.
• Section 17, Rule 59, Rules of Court — Governs recovery upon a bond after execution is returned unsatisfied, requiring notice and summary hearing. Applied to rule that the surety was given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, satisfying the summary hearing requirement.
• Section 12, Rule 59, Rules of Court — States that a bond filed for discharge of attachment secures payment of the judgment and stands in place of the property released. Applied to rule that the surety's liability automatically attaches upon return of unsatisfied execution against the principal, requiring no separate judgment.