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 private
respondent !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 its
general 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 %%%. Conse.uentl", !ot )o. 19 was
foreclosed *" %%% 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 *e
e/ecuted with respect to !ot )o. 1+, considering that their house was *uilt therein. #owever, private
respondent refused. This prompted petitioners to file, on 0une 11, 1992, an action for reformation of
contract and damages with the 3egional Trial Court.
4n 0anuar" 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 that
what plaintiff had *ought from the defendant is !ot 19 covered *" TCT )o. 6+657 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 to
assail 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 (9 957 &The %u*division and
Condominium Bu"ers (rotective 9ecree'. 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*se.uent 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 at
an" 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:2wvirtuali*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 the
reason 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 same
courts 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. )ot
even 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 to
.uestion the courts 8urisdiction over the case the" themselves filed.
(etitioners should *ear the conse.uence of their act. The" cannot *e allowed to profit from their
omission to the damage and pre8udice of the private respondent.