G.R. No. 215640. November 28, 2016.*

 
NESTOR CABRERA, petitioner, vs. ARNEL CLARIN and
WIFE; MILAGROS BARRIOS and HUSBAND; AURORA
SERAFIN and HUSBAND; and BONIFACIO MORENO
and WIFE, respondents.

Jurisdiction; Accion Publiciana; With the modifications

introduced by Republic Act (RA) No. 7691 in 1994, the jurisdiction
of the first level courts has been expanded to include jurisdiction
over other real actions where the assessed value does not exceed
P20,000.00, P50,000.00 where the action is filed in Metro Manila.
Accordingly, the jurisdictional element is the assessed value of the
property.—Before the amendments, the plenary action of accion
publiciana was to be brought before the RTC regardless of the
value of the property. With the modifications introduced by R.A.
No. 7691 in 1994, the jurisdiction of the first level courts has been
expanded to include jurisdiction over other real actions where the
assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00, P50,000.00 where the
action is filed in Metro Manila. Accordingly, the jurisdictional
element is the assessed value of the property.
Same; Absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed
value of the property, it cannot readily be determined which court
had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case.—Indeed,
nowhere in the complaint was the assessed value of the subject
property ever mentioned. On its face, there is no showing that the
RTC has jurisdiction exclusive of the MTC. Absent any allegation
in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot
readily be determined which court had original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the case at bar. The courts cannot take judicial
notice of the assessed or market value of the land.
Same; A court’s jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal for the same is conferred by law, and
lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance
of and to render judgment on the action.—It is axiomatic that the
na-

_______________
 *  THIRD DIVISION.

 
 

564

564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabrera vs. Clarin

ture of an action and the jurisdiction of a tribunal are

determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the
law at the time the action was commenced. A court’s jurisdiction
may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal for
the same is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very
authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render
judgment on the action. It applies even if the issue on jurisdiction
was raised for the first time on appeal or even after final
judgment.
Same; Estoppel; The principle of estoppel by laches bars a
party from invoking the lack of jurisdiction at a late hour for the
purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active
participation of said party invoking the plea.—The exception to
the basic rule mentioned operates on the principle of estoppel by
laches — whereby a party may be barred by laches from invoking
the lack of jurisdiction at a late hour for the purpose of annulling
everything done in the case with the active participation of said
party invoking the plea.
Same; Same; The case of La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court
of Appeals, 236 SCRA 78 (1994), illustrates the rule as to when
jurisdiction by estoppel applies and when it does not.—In the case
of La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 78
(1994), We illustrated the rule as to when jurisdiction by estoppel
applies and when it does not.
Evidence; Formal Offer of Evidence; The Rules of Court
provides that the court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered. A formal offer is necessary because judges
are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment
only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the
trial.—The Rules of Court provides that the court shall consider
no evidence which has not been formally offered. A formal offer is
necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of
facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence
offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial
judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is
presenting the evidence. Conversely, this allows opposing parties
to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover,
it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be
required to review documents not previously scrutinized
by the trial court.
  
 

565

VOL. 810, NOVEMBER 28, 2016 565

Cabrera vs. Clarin

Jurisdiction; As the assessed value is a jurisdictional

requirement, the belated presentation of document proving such
value before the appellate court will not cure the glaring defect in
the complaint.—Since the tax declaration was never duly
identified by testimony during the trial albeit incorporated in the
Appellee’s Brief, the CA will not be required to review such
document that was not previously scrutinized by the RTC. As the
assessed value is a jurisdictional requirement, the belated
presentation of document proving such value before the appellate
court will not cure the glaring defect in the complaint. Thus,
jurisdiction was not acquired.
Same; Estoppel; The general rule is that the lack of a court’s
jurisdiction is a non-waivable defense that a party can raise at any
stage of the proceedings in a case, even on appeal; the doctrine of
estoppel, being the exception to such non-waivable defense, must be
applied with great care and the equity must be strong in its favor.
—It bears emphasis that the ruling in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23
SCRA 29 (1968), establishes an exception which is to be applied
only under extraordinary circumstances or to those cases similar
to its factual situation. The general rule is that the lack of a
court’s jurisdiction is a non-waivable defense that a party can
raise at any stage of the proceedings in a case, even on appeal; the
doctrine of estoppel, being the exception to such non-waivable
defense, must be applied with great care and the equity must be
strong in its favor.
Same; Void Judgments; A void judgment for want of
jurisdiction is no judgment at all, and cannot be the source of any
right nor the creator of any obligation.—All told, We find no error
on the part of the CA in dismissing the Complaint for lack of
jurisdiction and for not reviewing the document belatedly filed.
Consequently, all proceedings in the RTC are null and void.
Indeed, a void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at
all, and cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any
obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims
emanating from it have no legal effect.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

 
 
 566

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabrera vs. Clarin

   Pangilinan, Pangilinan, Macalino, Tubig & Associates

Law Office for petitioner.
   Public Attorney’s Office for respondents.

PERALTA, J.:
 
For resolution of this Court is a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by
petitioner Nestor Cabrera (Cabrera) assailing the Decision1
dated July 25, 2014 and Resolution2 dated November 21,
2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
100950, which reversed and set aside the Decision3 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch
10, in Civil Case No. 752-M-2006.
The facts are as follows:
The instant petition originated from a Complaint4 for
accion publiciana with damages filed before the RTC by
Cabrera5 against respondents Arnel Clarin (Clarin) and
wife, Milagros Barrios (Barrios) and husband, Aurora
Serafin (Serafin) and husband, and Bonifacio Moreno
(Moreno) and wife.6 Cabrera alleged that he is the lawful
and registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land
located at Barangay Maysulao, Calumpit, Bulacan, with a
total area of 60,000 square meters (sq. m.) covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-4439. He was in
actual and physical possession of the land until he
discovered the encroachment of respon-

_______________

1   Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate

Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Danton Q. Bueser,
concurring; Rollo, pp. 32-41.
2  Id., at pp. 43-44.
3  Penned by Judge Basilio R. Gabo, Jr.; id., at pp. 87-88.
4  Id., at pp. 45-48.
5  Cabrera was joined by his wife in the complaint filed before the RTC.
6  Rollo, p. 33.

 
 
567

VOL. 810, NOVEMBER 28, 2016 567

Cabrera vs. Clarin
dents sometime in December 2005. By means of fraud,
strategy and stealth, respondents usurped and occupied
portions of the said property, viz.: Clarin with 63 sq. m.
thereof, Barrios with 41 sq. m. thereof, Serafin with 30 sq.
m. thereof, and Moreno with 11 sq. m. thereof. He made
numerous oral and written demands to vacate the premises
but the respondents refused to heed. They also failed to
settle amicably when the case was brought before the
barangay for conciliation.
In their Motion to Dismiss,7 respondents claimed that
the complaint failed to state the assessed value of the
property which is needed in determining the correct
amount of docket fees to be paid. Also, Cabrera did not
fulfill an essential condition prior to the filing of the
complaint which was submission of a government approved
technical survey plan to prove the alleged encroachment.
Cabrera anchors his claim of ownership in the certificate of
title registered in his and his father Ciriaco Cabrera’s
name. Cabrera did not aver that it was his portion of
property that respondents have intruded as there was no
proof of partition of the property since his father who was
an American citizen died in the United States of America.8
In an Order dated June 19, 2007, the RTC denied
respondents’ motion, and directed them to file their
Answer.9 The RTC cited the case of Aguilon v. Bohol10 in
ruling that based on the allegations in the complaint, the
case is the plenary action of accion publiciana which
clearly falls within its jurisdiction. The trial court, in an
Order11 dated October 19, 2007, declared respondents in
default upon failing to file their Answer, and allowed
Cabrera to present his evidence ex parte. On February 5,
2009, respondents filed an Omnibus Motion12

_______________

7  Id., at pp. 55-57.

8  Id., at p. 56.
9  Penned by Presiding Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos; id., at p. 34.
10  169 Phil. 473, 476; 79 SCRA 482, 485 (1977).
11  Rollo, p. 67.
12  Id., at pp. 73-77.

 
 
568

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabrera vs. Clarin

to set aside the order of default, to admit Answer, and to

set the hearing for the presentation of their evidence.
 In a Decision dated May 30, 2012, the RTC ruled in
favor of Cabrera. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby

rendered in favor of the [petitioner]:

1. ORDERING the [respondents] and all other persons

claiming rights under them to vacate the subject portions of
[the] land and surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff;
 
2. ORDERING the [respondents] to pay attorney’s fees in
the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P]50,000.00) and Ten
Thousand Pesos ([P]10,000.00) litigation expenses.
 
SO ORDERED.13

 
Aggrieved, respondents elevated the case before the CA
which then reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC
in a Decision dated July 25, 2014. The fallo of the decision
reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision

dated May 30, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10,
Malolos, Bulacan is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof,
the complaint for accion publiciana with damages filed by
[petitioner] Nestor Cabrera is DISMISSED without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.14

 
Finding no cogent reason to deviate from its previous
ruling, the CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed
by Cabrera.
Hence, the instant petition raising the following issues:

_______________

13  Id., at p. 88. (Emphasis omitted)

14  Id., at p. 40. (Emphasis omitted)

 
 

569

VOL. 810, NOVEMBER 28, 2016 569

Cabrera vs. Clarin

A. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error

when it held that “since [petitioner] failed to allege the
assessed value of the subject property, the court a quo has not
acquired jurisdiction over the action and all proceedings
 thereat are null and void,” as such conclusion is contradictory
to the doctrine of estoppel.
B. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error
when it failed to take into consideration the tax declaration
annexed to the Appellee’s Brief which provided the assessed
value of the property subject matter of the case.

 
The instant petition lacks merit.
In essence, the issue presented before this Court is
whether or not estoppel bars respondents from raising the
issue of lack of jurisdiction.
Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, (the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980), as amended by Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 7691 provides:

x x x x
 
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.—Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where
the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over
which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
 
x x x x
 
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial

 
 

570

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabrera vs. Clarin

Courts in Civil Cases.—Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal

Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions
which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein where the assessed value of the
property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That
in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of
such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the
adjacent lots.
 
x x x15

 
Before the amendments, the plenary action of accion
publiciana was to be brought before the RTC regardless of
the value of the property. With the modifications
introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994, the jurisdiction of the
first level courts has been expanded to include jurisdiction
over other real actions where the assessed value does not
exceed P20,000.00, P50,000.00 where the action is filed in
Metro Manila. Accordingly, the jurisdictional element is
the assessed value of the property.16
A perusal of the complaint readily shows that Cabrera
failed to state the assessed value of the disputed land, thus:

x x x x
 
[T]he plaintiffs are the lawful and the registered owner of a
parcel of agricultural land and more particularly described under
Transfer Certificate of Title No.

_______________

15  Emphasis and underscoring supplied.

16  Geonzon Vda. de Barrera v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi, 586 Phil. 750,
756; 565 SCRA 192, 197 (2008). (Emphasis supplied)

 
 
571

VOL. 810, NOVEMBER 28, 2016 571

Cabrera vs. Clarin

T-4439, a copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex

“A” and made an integral part hereof;
[T]he defendants had illegally encroached the property of the
plaintiff by means of fraud and stealth and with force and
intimidation. Defendant Arnel Clarin had encroached an
approximate area of SIXTY THREE (63) SQUARE METERS,
while defendant Milagros Barrios had encroached an approximate
area of FORTY-ONE (41) SQUARE METERS, defendant Aurora
Serafin had encroached an approximate area of THIRTY (30)
SQUARE METERS while defendant Bonifacio Moreno had
encroached an approximate area of ELEVEN (11) SQUARE
METERS, copy of the relocation plan is hereto attached and
marked as Annex “B” and made an integral part of this complaint;
 The plaintiffs had already informed the defendants of the
illegal encroachment but the defendants refused to heed the call
of the plaintiffs to vacate the land in question and threaten
plaintiff with bodily harm;
That prior to the discovery of the encroachment on or about
December 2005, plaintiff was in actual and physical possession of
the premises.
That this matter was referred to the attention of the Office of
the Barangay Chairman of Barangay Maysulao, Calumpit,
Bulacan and a Lupong Tagapamayapa was constituted but no
conciliation was reached and the Lupon issued a Certificate to
File Action, copy of the Certificate to File Action is hereto
attached and marked as Annex “C” and made an integral part
hereof;
That notwithstanding numerous and persistent demands, both
oral and written, extended upon the defendants to vacate the
subject parcel of land, they failed and refused and still fail and
refuse to vacate and surrender possession of the subject parcel of
land to the lawful owner who is plaintiff in this case. Copy of the
last formal demand dated January 18, 2006 is hereto attached
and marked as Annex “ ” and the registry receipt as well as the
registry return card as “D” Annexes “D-1,” and “D-2,” respectively;

 
 
572

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabrera vs. Clarin

That because of this unjustifiable refusal of the defendants to

vacate the premises in question which they now unlawfully
occupy, plaintiffs [were] constrained to engage the services of
counsel in an agreed amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
([P]50,000.00) Philippine Currency, as acceptance fee and THREE
THOUSAND PESOS ([P]3,000.00) Philippine Currency, per day
of Court appearance, which amount the defendants should jointly
and solidarily pay the plaintiffs, copy of the retaining contract is
hereto attached and marked as Annex “E” and made an integral
part of this complaint;
That in order to protect the rights and interest of the plaintiffs,
litigation expenses will be incurred in an amount no less than
TEN THOUSAND PESOS ([P]10,000.00), which amount the
defendants should jointly and solidarily pay the plaintiffs;
That the amount of THREE THOUSAND PESOS ([P]3,000.00)
per month should be adjudicated in favor of the plaintiff as
against the defendants by way of beneficial use, to be counted
from the day the last formal demand until they fully vacate and
surrender possession of the premises in question to the plaintiffs.
x x x.17
  
In dismissing the case, the CA noted such fact, to wit:

In the case at bench, the complaint for accion publiciana filed

by [Cabrera] failed to allege the assessed value of the real
property subject of the complaint or the interest therein. Not even
a tax declaration was presented before the court a quo that would
show the valuation of the subject property. As such, there is no
way to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action or
whether the court a quo has exclusive jurisdiction over the same.
Verily, the court a quo erred in denying the motion to dismiss
filed by [respondents] and in taking cognizance of the instant
case.18

_______________

17  Rollo, pp. 45-46.

18  Id., at p. 37.

 
 
573

VOL. 810, NOVEMBER 28, 2016 573

Cabrera vs. Clarin

Indeed, nowhere in the complaint was the assessed

value of the subject property ever mentioned. On its face,
there is no showing that the RTC has jurisdiction exclusive
of the MTC. Absent any allegation in the complaint of the
assessed value of the property, it cannot readily be
determined which court had original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the case at bar. The courts cannot take
judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the land.19
We note that Cabrera, in his Comment/Opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss,20 maintained that the accion publiciana
is an action incapable of pecuniary interest under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.21 Thereafter, he admitted
in his Brief before the CA that the assessed value of the
subject property now determines which court has
jurisdiction over accion publiciana cases. In asserting the
trial court’s jurisdiction, petitioner averred that his failure
to allege the assessed value of the property in his
Complaint was merely innocuous and did not affect the
jurisdiction of the RTC to decide the case.
Cabrera alleges that the CA erred in concluding that the
RTC has not acquired jurisdiction over the action in the
instant case being contrary to the doctrine of estoppel as
elucidated in Honorio Bernardo v. Heirs of Villegas.22
Estoppel sets in when respondents participated in all
stages of the case and voluntarily submitting to its
jurisdiction seeking affirmative reliefs in addition to their
motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction.
We are not persuaded. It is axiomatic that the nature of
an action and the jurisdiction of a tribunal are determined
by the material allegations of the complaint and the law at
the time

_______________

19  Quinagoran v. Court of Appeals, 557 Phil. 650, 660-661; 531 SCRA

104, 114-115 (2007).
20  Rollo, pp. 59-60.
21  Id., at p. 59.
22  629 Phil. 450, 459; 615 SCRA 466, 470-471 (2010).

 
 
574

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabrera vs. Clarin

the action was commenced.23 A court’s jurisdiction may be

raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal for
the same is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very
authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render
judgment on the action.24 It applies even if the issue on
jurisdiction was raised for the first time on appeal or even
after final judgment.
The exception to the basic rule mentioned operates on
the principle of estoppel by laches — whereby a party may
be barred by laches from invoking the lack of jurisdiction at
a late hour for the purpose of annulling everything done in
the case with the active participation of said party invoking
the plea. In the oft-cited case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy,25
the party-surety invoked the jurisdictions of both the trial
and appellate courts in order to obtain affirmative relief,
and even submitted the case for final adjudication on the
merits. It was only after the CA had rendered an adverse
decision that the party-surety raised the question of
jurisdiction for the first time in a motion to dismiss almost
fifteen (15) years later. Hence, the Court adjudicated a
party estopped from assailing the court’s jurisdiction, to
wit:

x x x x
 
[a] party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to
secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after
obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction. . . ., it was further said that
the question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the
subject matter of the action or of the parties was not important in
such

_______________

23   Malana v. Tappa, 616 Phil. 177, 190; 600 SCRA 189, 203 (2009),
citing Laresma v. Abellana, 484 Phil. 766, 778-779; 442 SCRA 156, 169
(2004).
24   Zacarias v. Anacay, G.R. No. 202354, September 24, 2014, 736
SCRA 508, 522.
25  131 Phil. 556, 565; 23 SCRA 29, 36-37 (1968).

 
 

575

VOL. 810, NOVEMBER 28, 2016 575

Cabrera vs. Clarin

cases because the party is barred 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 practice cannot be
tolerated — obviously for reasons of public policy. x x x26

 
However, it was explicated in Calimlim v. Ramirez27
that Tijam is an exceptional case because of the presence of
laches. Thus:

The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of

the proceedings, even on appeal. This doctrine has been qualified
by recent pronouncements which stemmed principally from the
ruling in the cited case of Sibonghanoy. It is to be regretted,
however, that the holding in said case had been applied to
situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. The
exceptional circumstance involved in Sibonghanoy which justified
the departure from the accepted concept of non-waivability of
objection to jurisdiction has been ignored and, instead a blanket
doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed
ruling in Sibonghanoy not as the exception, but rather the general
rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle
that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.
In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court
that rendered the questioned ruling was held to be barred by
estoppel by laches. It was ruled that the lack of jurisdiction
having been raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss
filed almost fifteen (15) years after the questioned ruling
had been rendered, such a plea may no longer be raised for
being barred by laches. As defined in said case, laches is
failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained
length of time, to do that which, by exer-

_______________

26  Id., at p. 564; pp. 35-36. (Emphasis ours)

27  Calimlim v. Ramirez, 204 Phil. 25, 35; 118 SCRA 399, 406 (1982).

 
 
576

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabrera vs. Clarin

cising 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 entitled to assert has abandoned it or declined to
assert it.28

 
In the case of La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of
Appeals,29 We illustrated the rule as to when jurisdiction
by estoppel applies and when it does not, as follows:
 

x x x x
 
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit is yet
another matter. Whenever it appears that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed
(Section 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court). This defense may be
interposed at any time, during appeal (Roxas v. Rafferty, 37
Phil. 957) or even after final judgment (Cruzcosa v. Judge
Concepcion, et al., 101 Phil. 146). Such is understandable, as this
kind of jurisdiction is conferred by law and not within the
courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or
conveniently set aside. In People v. Casiano (111 Phil. 73, 93-94),
this Court, on the issue or estoppel, held:

The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question

of jurisdiction seemingly depends upon whether the lower
court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no
jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon
the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not
barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction,
for the same ‘must exist as a matter of law, and may
not be conferred by consent of the parties or by
estoppel’ (5 C.J.S., 861-863).
_______________

28  Id. (Emphasis supplied)

29  G.R. No. 103200, August 31, 1994, 236 SCRA 78.

 
 
577

VOL. 810, NOVEMBER 28, 2016 577

Cabrera vs. Clarin

However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and

the case was heard and decided upon a given theory,
such, for instance, as that the court had no
jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such
theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an
inconsistent position — that the lower court had
jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies.
The rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does not
depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon.
x x x.30

 
Guided by the above mentioned jurisprudence, this
Court rules that respondents are not estopped from
assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject civil
case. Records reveal that even before filing their Answer,
respondents assailed the jurisdiction of the RTC through a
motion to dismiss as there was no mention of the assessed
value of the property in the complaint. We note that the
RTC anchored its denial of respondents’ motion to dismiss
on the doctrine enunciated in a 1977 case — that all cases
of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lie with the
RTC regardless of the value — which no longer holds true.
Thereafter, the respondents filed their Answer through an
omnibus motion to set aside order of default and to admit
Answer.
The circumstances of the present case are different from
the Heirs of Villegas31 case. First, petitioner Bernardo in
the Heirs of Villegas case actively participated during the
trial by adducing evidence and filing numerous pleadings,
none of which mentioned any defect in the jurisdiction of
the RTC, while in this case, respondents already raised the
issue of lack of jurisdiction in their Motion to Dismiss filed
before their

_______________

30  Id., at p. 90. (Emphases supplied)

31  Bernardo v. Heirs of Villegas, supra note 22.
  
 
578

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabrera vs. Clarin

Answer. Second, it was only on appeal before the CA, after

he obtained an adverse judgment in the trial court, that
Bernardo, for the first time, came up with the argument
that the decision is void because there was no allegation in
the complaint about the value of the property; on the other
hand, herein respondents raised the issue before there was
judgment on the merits in the trial court. Respondents
never assumed inconsistent position in their appeal before
the CA.
Furthermore, the unfairness and inequity that the
application of estoppel seeks to avoid espoused in the Tijam
case, which the Heirs of Villegas adheres to, are not
present. The instant case does not involve a situation
where a party who, after obtaining affirmative relief
from the court, later on turned around to assail the
jurisdiction of the same court that granted such
relief by reason of an unfavorable judgment.
Respondents did not obtain affirmative relief from the trial
court whose jurisdiction they are assailing, as their motion
to dismiss was denied and they eventually lost their case in
the proceedings below.
Anent the issue of the CA’s failure to consider the tax
declaration annexed in the Appellee’s Brief, Cabrera insists
that its attachment in his Brief without objection from the
other party sealed the issue of the RTC’s jurisdiction, and
cured the defect of failure to allege the assessed value of
the property in the complaint as provided in Section 5,32
Rule 10 of the Rules of Court.

_______________

32  Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of

evidence.—When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the
express or implied consent of the parties they shall be treated in all
respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of
the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the
evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party
at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not effect the
result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on
the ground that it is

 
 
 579

VOL. 810, NOVEMBER 28, 2016 579

Cabrera vs. Clarin

Such averments lack merit. The Rules of Court provides

that the court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered.33 A formal offer is necessary because
judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and
their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered
by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial
judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the
proponent is presenting the evidence. Conversely, this
allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object
to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the
appellate court will not be required to review
documents not previously scrutinized by the trial
court.34 We relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed
evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered
by the trial court provided the following requirements are
present, viz.: first, the same must have been duly identified
by testimony duly recorded and, second, the same must
have been incorporated in the records of the case.35
Based on the petitioner’s admission, he presented the
Tax Declaration 2006-07016-0039436 dated November 13,
2006 purporting to prove the assessed value of the property
for the first time on appeal before the CA in his Brief.37
There was no

_______________

not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the
pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation
of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be
subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the
amendment to be made.
33  Rule 132, Section 34, Offer of evidence.—The court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified.
34  Heirs of Romana Saves v. Heirs of Escolastico Saves, 646 Phil. 536,
544; 632 SCRA 236, 246 (2010). (Emphasis supplied)
35  Id., citing People v. Napat-a, 258-A Phil. 994, 998; 179 SCRA 403,
407 (1989), citing People v. Mate, 191 Phil. 72, 82; 103 SCRA 484, 493
(1981).
36  Rollo, p. 148.
37  Id., at p. 141.

 
 

580
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cabrera vs. Clarin

proof or allegation that he presented the same during the

trial or that the court examined such document.38 Since the
tax declaration was never duly identified by testimony
during the trial albeit incorporated in the Appellee’s Brief,
the CA will not be required to review such document that
was not previously scrutinized by the RTC. As the assessed
value is a jurisdictional requirement, the belated
presentation of document proving such value before the
appellate court will not cure the glaring defect in the
complaint. Thus, jurisdiction was not acquired.
We find Cabrera’s application of Section 5, Rule 10 of
the Rules of Court to support his claim that failure of the
respondents to object to his presentation of the tax
declaration before the CA constitutes an implied consent
which then treated the issue of assessed value as if it had
been raised in the pleadings specious. Such rule
contemplates an amendment to conform to or authorize
presentation of evidence before the trial court during the
trial on the merits of the case. As held in Bernardo, Sr. v.
Court of Appeals,39 this Court expounded:

It is settled that even if the complaint be defective, but the

parties go to trial thereon, and the plaintiff, without
objection, introduces sufficient evidence to constitute the
particular cause of action which it intended to allege in the
original complaint, and the defendant voluntarily produces
witnesses to meet the cause of action thus established, an issue
is joined as fully and as effectively as if it had been
previously joined by the most perfect pleadings. Likewise,
when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or
implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects
as if they had been raised in the pleadings.40 (Emphases supplied)

_______________

38   Formal Offer of Evidence of Petitioner before the RTC; id., at pp.

68-69.
39  331 Phil. 962; 263 SCRA 660 (1996).
40  Id., at p. 978; pp. 673-674. (Emphases supplied)

 
 
581

VOL. 810, NOVEMBER 28, 2016 581

Cabrera vs. Clarin
 It bears emphasis that the ruling in Tijam establishes
an exception which is to be applied only under
extraordinary circumstances or to those cases similar to its
factual situation.41 The general rule is that the lack of a
court’s jurisdiction is a non-waivable defense that a party
can raise at any stage of the proceedings in a case, even on
appeal; the doctrine of estoppel, being the exception to such
non-waivable defense, must be applied with great care and
the equity must be strong in its favor.42
All told, We find no error on the part of the CA in
dismissing the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for
not reviewing the document belatedly filed. Consequently,
all proceedings in the RTC are null and void. Indeed, a void
judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all, and
cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any
obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims
emanating from it have no legal effect.43
WHEREFORE, petition for review on certiorari filed by
petitioner Nestor Cabrera is hereby DENIED. The assailed
Decision dated July 25, 2014 and Resolution dated
November 21, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV
No. 100950 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes and Jardeleza,

JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

_______________

41  Regalado v. Go, 543 Phil. 578, 598; 514 SCRA 616, 635 (2007).
42  C & S Fishfarm Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 442 Phil. 279, 290-
291; 394 SCRA 82, 91 (2002).
43  Supra note 24.

 
 

581

VOL. 810, NOVEMBER 28, 2016 581

Cabrera vs. Clarin

Note.—Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or

the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the
silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent of the
parties. If the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of
an action, its only jurisdiction is to dismiss the case.
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Silicon Philippines,
Inc. [formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.], 718
SCRA 513 [2014])
  
——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.