G.R. No. 144025. December 27, 2002

GONZAGA vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court

of Appeals.

The records disclose that, sometime in 1970, petitionerspouses purchased a parcel of land from privaterespondent !uck" #omes, $nc.,. %aid lot was specificall" denominated as !ot 19 under Transfer 

Certificate of Title &TCT' and was mortgaged to %%% as securit" for their housing loan. (etitioners then

started the construction of their house, not on !ot )o. 19 *ut on !ot )o. 1+, as private respondent

mistakenl" identified !ot )o. 1+ as !ot )o. 19. pon reali-ing its error, private respondent, through itsgeneral manager, informed petitioners of such mistake *ut the latter offered to *u" !ot )o. 1+ in order 

to widen their premises. Thus, petitioners continued with the construction of their house. #owever,

 petitioners defaulted in the pa"ment of their housing loan from %%%. Conseuentl", !ot )o. 19 wasforeclosed *" %%% and petitioners certificate of title was cancelled and a new one was issued in the

name of %%%. After !ot )o. 19 was foreclosed, petitioners offered to swap !ot )os. 1+ and 19 and

demanded from private respondent that their contract of sale *e reformed and another deed of sale *ee/ecuted with respect to !ot )o. 1+, considering that their house was *uilt therein. #owever, private

respondent refused. This prompted petitioners to file, on une 1, 1992, an action for reformation of 

contract and damages with the 3egional Trial Court.

4n anuar" 15, 199+, the trial court rendered its decision dismissing the complaint.

The logic and common sense of the situation lean heavil" in favor of the defendant. $t is evident thatwhat plaintiff had *ought from the defendant is !ot 19 covered *" TCT )o. 6+65 which parcel of land

has *een properl" indicated in the instruments and not !ot 1+ as claimed *" the plaintiff. The contracts

 *eing clear and unmistaka*le, the" reflect the true intention of the parties, *esides the plaintiff failed toassail the contracts on mutual mistake, hence the same need no longer *e reformed.

A writ of e/ecution was issued *" the trial court. (etitioners filed an urgent motion to recall writ of 

e/ecution, alleging that the court a quo had no 8urisdiction to tr" the case as it was vested in the

#ousing and !and se 3egulator" Board &#!3B' pursuant to ( 957 &The %u*division andCondominium Bu"ers (rotective ecree'. Conforma*l", petitioners filed a new complaint against

 private respondent with the #!3B. (etitionerspouses filed *efore the Court of Appeals a petition for 

annulment of 8udgment, premised on the ground that the trial court had no 8urisdiction to tr" and decide

the Civil Case.

Court of Appeals denied the petition for annulment of 8udgment, rel"ing mainl" on the 8urisprudential

doctrine of estoppel as laid down in the case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy.cr:l:wvirtuali*r:r"

Their su*seuent motion for reconsideration having *een denied, petitioners filed this instant petition,

contending that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition *" appl"ing the principle of estoppel, even if the 3egional Trial Court, had no 8urisdiction to decide the civil case.

(etitioners claim that the recent decisions of this Court have alread" a*andoned the doctrine laid down

in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy.  ;e do not agree. $n countless decisions, this Court has consistentl" held

that, while an order or decision rendered without 8urisdiction is a total nullit" and ma" *e assailed atan" stage, active participation in the proceedings in the court which rendered the order or decision will

 *ar such part" from attacking its 8urisdiction. As we held in the leading case of Tijam vs.

Sibonghanoy<cr:l:2wvir tuali*r:r"

 

A part" ma" *e estopped or *arred from raising a uestion in different wa"s and for different reasons.

Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel *" deed or *" record, and of estoppel *" laches.

/ / /

$t has *een held that a part" cannot invoke the 8urisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against

his opponent and, after o*taining or failing to o*tain such relief, repudiate, or uestion that same 8urisdiction / / / / =T>he uestion whether the court had 8urisdiction either of the su*8ect matter of the

action or of the parties was not important in such cases *ecause the part" is *arred from such conduct

not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for thereason that such a practice can not be tolerated  o*viousl" for reasons of pu*lic polic".

Ti8am has *een reiterated in man" succeeding cases. Thus, this Court affirmed the rule that a part"?s

active participation in all stages of the case *efore the trial court, which includes invoking the courts

authorit" to grant affirmative relief, effectivel" estops such part" from later challenging that samecourts 8urisdiction.

$n the case at *ar, it was petitioners themselves who invoked the 8urisdiction of the court a uo *"

instituting an action for reformation of contract against private respondents. $t appears that, in the

 proceedings *efore the trial court, petitioners vigorousl" asserted their cause from start to finish. )oteven once did petitioners ever raise the issue of the courts 8urisdiction during the entire proceedings

which lasted for two "ears. $t was onl" after the trial court rendered its decision and issued a writ of 

e/ecution against them in 199+ did petitioners first raise the issue of 8urisdiction @ and it was onl"

 *ecause said decision was unfavora*le to them. (etitioners thus effectivel" waived their right touestion the courts 8urisdiction over the case the" themselves filed.

(etitioners should *ear the conseuence of their act. The" cannot *e allowed to profit from their 

omission to the damage and pre8udice of the private respondent.