Amogius vs. Ballado and Ledesma (Remedial Law)

Amogius vs. Ballado and Ledesma

G.R. No. 189626, August 20, 2018

Third Division

Leonen, J

NHA jurisdiction; estoppel; Tijam

In 1969, Francisco Ballado (Francisco) and Concepcion Ballado (Concepcion) (collectively, the Ballado Spouses) entered into two contracts with owner and developer St. Joseph Realty, Ltd. (St. Joseph Realty) to buy on installment parcels of land, which were designated as Lot Nos. 1 and 2, and were located in Block No. 1, Dadiangas Heights Subdivision, General Santos City.

By February 1987, the Ballado Spouses discovered that St. Joseph Realty rescinded their contracts. They found out that St. Joseph Realty had sent written demands to pay to the address of Lot Nos. 1 and 2, and not to their residence as declared in the contracts.

Meanwhile, on February 9, 1987, St. Joseph Realty sold Lot Nos. 1 and 2 to the Amoguis Brothers. The Amoguis Brothers then occupied the lots. On August 18, 1987, titles were issued in the Amoguis Brothers' names.

The Ballado Spouses filed a Complaint for damages, injunction with writ of preliminary injunction, mandatory injunction, cancellation and annulment of titles, and attorney's fees. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the Ballado Spouses, and against St. Joseph Realty and the Amoguis Brothers.

Though not raised, the Court of Appeals discussed at the outset the issue of jurisdiction. Since the Ballado Spouses wanted St. Joseph Realty to comply with the provisions of the contracts to sell, the Complaint was for specific performance. The subject matter of the case involved subdivision lots. Therefore, jurisdiction was lodged with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. The Court of Appeals ruled, however, that since neither St. Joseph Realty nor the Amoguis Brothers raised the issue of jurisdiction before the Regional Trial Court, they must be considered estopped from raising it on appeal.

Question: Did the RTC have subject matter jurisdiction in this case?

No. 

Solid Homes cemented the National Housing Authority's jurisdiction to hear and decide claims for damages and attorney's fees incidental to unsound business practices, claims for refund, and for specific performance against subdivision lot or condominium unit owners, developers, dealers, brokers, or salesmen. This Court ruled that the qualifier "and any other claims" in Section 1(b) of Presidential Decree No. 1344 meant so. In Solid Homes, this Court also ruled that as an administrative body, the National Housing Authority possessed specialized competence and experience to determine these allied matters.

According to Presidential Decree No. 1344, exclusive original jurisdiction for specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman is lodged with the National Housing Authority.

Question: Are the parties in this case estopped from raising subject matter jurisdiction before the Supreme Court?

Yes.

Estoppel by laches bars a party from invoking lack of jurisdiction in an unjustly belated manner especially when it actively participated during trial.

xxx

Tijam set a precedent to stop legal machinations where jurisdiction was raised at the very last minute when the parties have already gone through long years of litigation. It was not so much an issue of time than it was an issue of fairness. Though conferred by law, fairness and equity must temper the parties' bravado to raise jurisdiction when they have participated in proceedings in the lower courts or when an unfavorable judgment against them has been rendered.

xxx

In summary, Tijam applies to a party claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction when:

1. there was a statutory right in favor of the claimant;

2. the statutory right was not invoked;

3. an unreasonable length of time lapsed before the claimant raised the issue of jurisdiction;

4. the claimant actively participated in the case and sought affirmative relief from the court without jurisdiction;

5. the claimant knew or had constructive knowledge of which forum possesses subject matter jurisdiction;

6. irreparable damage will be caused to the other party who relied on the forum and the claimant's implicit waiver.

Tijam applies in this case. The allegations, determinative of subject matter jurisdiction, were apparent on the face of the Complaint. The law that determines jurisdiction of the National Housing Authority had been in place for more than a decade when the Complaint was filed. St. Joseph Realty raised lack of jurisdiction in its Answer. Petitioners sought affirmative relief from the Regional Trial Court and actively participated in all stages of the proceedings. Therefore, there was no valid reason for petitioners to raise the issue of jurisdiction only now before this Court.