Arciga v. Baluyut

 

Arciga v. Baluyut

G.R. No 256612

June 14, 2023

 

FACTS:

                On June 26, 2008, Jaycee P. Baluyut (respondent) filed a Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage against petitioners and alleged that: ( 1) on December 5, 2002, petitioners, as heirs of Simplicio Arciga, executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate/Partition with Special Power of Attorney (EJS-SPA) over a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 142572 located in Concepcion, Tarlac (property); thus, TCT No. 142572 was cancelled and a new one was issued in the names of petitioners under TCT No. 395377; (2) on August 11, 2005, Relia took a loan from respondent in the amount of P500,000.00 with interest at the rate of 8% per month, payable after 5 months; (3) using the same EJS-SPA, Relia secured the loan and executed a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) over the property in favor of respondent; and ( 4) upon maturity of the loan and despite respondent's repeated demands, Relia refused to pay her obligation. In their Answer, petitioners raised the defense of lack of authority of Relia to act for and on behalf of her mother, Rita. According to them, the EJS-SPA only authorized Relia to mortgage the property to a certain "Amelia G. Pineda", and not to any other person. As such, they argued that the mortgage was unenforceable as against Rita's share in the property.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment.

HELD:

                YES. With regard to the question of the RTC's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present case, petitioners are already estopped from questioning it. A complaint for foreclosure of REM, as in the present case, being a real action, must be filed with the appropriate court, depending on the assessed value of the property. On this point, the Court agrees with petitioners that the RTC had no jurisdiction to hear and resolve respondent's complaint. However, while the issue on jurisdiction over the subject matter may generally be raised at any time in the proceedings, even on appeal, petitioners are already estopped from questioning the RTC's lack of jurisdiction. Estoppel sets in when "a party participates in all stages of a case before challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court. One cannot belatedly reject or repudiate its decision after voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction, just to secure affinnative relief against one's opponent or after failing to obtain such relief. "

To recall, in the proceedings before the RTC, petitioners only assailed the validity of the REM on the ground that the EJS-SPA executed by Rita in favor of her daughter, Relia, only authorized the latter to mortgage the property in favor of a certain Amelia Pineda. 56 It bears stressing that they actively pmiicipated in the trial and presented themselves as witnesses. In fact, when the RTC's decision became final and executory, petitioners still did not question the RTC's jurisdiction. They only opposed the issuance of the WOP in favor of respondent and argued that: ( 1) their right to redeem the property had not yet lapsed; and (2) that the monthly interest of 8% was void. It is also worth mentioning that when petitioners filed their petition for annulment of judgment with the CA, they simply reiterated their point that the imposition of the monthly interest of 8% is void for being unconscionable, exorbitant, and contrary to law, morals, and public policy. Verily, it is already too late for petitioners to challenge the RTC's jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint failed to allege the assessed value of the subject property. For participating in all stages of the case before the lower court, petitioners are indubitably barred by estoppel from challenging the lower court's jurisdiction.