3. SPS. RENE GONZAGA and LERIO GONZAGA, petitioners, the latter offered to buy Lot No.

o buy Lot No. 18 in order to widen their

vs. premises. Thus, petitioners continued with the construction
HON. COURT OF APPEALS of their house. However, petitioners defaulted in the
payment of their housing loan from SSS. Consequently, Lot
1. Remedial Law; Estoppel; While an order or decision No. 19 was foreclosed by SSS and petitioners certificate of
rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be title was cancelled and a new one was issued in the name
assailed at any stage, active participation in the of SSS. After Lot No. 19 was foreclosed, petitioners offered
proceedings in the court which rendered the order or to swap Lot Nos. 18 and 19 and demanded from private
decision will bar such party from attacking its jurisdiction.- respondent that their contract of sale be reformed and
Petitioners claim that the recent decisions of this Court another deed of sale be executed with respect to Lot No.
have already abandoned the doctrine laid down in Tijam vs. 18, considering that their house was built therein.
Sibonghanoy. We do not agree. In countless decisions, this However, private respondent refused. This prompted
Court has consistently held that, while an order or decision petitioners to file, on June 13, 1996, an action for
rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be reformation of contract and damages with the Regional
assailed at any stage, active participation in the Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 36, which was docketed as
proceedings in the court which rendered the order or Civil Case No. 17115.
decision will bar such party from attacking its jurisdiction.
On January 15, 1998, the trial court2 rendered its decision
2. Remedial Law; Estoppel; Court frowns upon the dismissing the complaint for lack of merit and ordering
undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for herein petitioners to pay private respondent the amount of
decision and then accepting the judgment but only if P10,000 as moral damages and another P10,000 as
favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if not.- attorneys fees. The pertinent conclusion of the trial court
Petitioners should bear the consequence of their act. They reads as follows:
cannot be allowed to profit from their omission to the
damage and prejudice of the private respondent. This Court "Aware of such fact, the plaintiff nonetheless continued to
frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting stay in the premises of Lot 18 on the proposal that he
his case for decision and then accepting the judgment but would also buy the same. Plaintiff however failed to buy Lot
only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if 18 and likewise defaulted in the payment of his loan with
not. the SSS involving Lot 19. Consequently Lot 19 was
foreclosed and sold at public auction. Thereafter TCT No. T-
29950 was cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT No. T-86612
G.R. No. 144025 December 27, 2002 (Exh. 9) was issued in favor of SSS. This being the situation
obtaining, the reformation of instruments, even if allowed,
SPS. RENE GONZAGA and LERIO GONZAGA, petitioners, or the swapping of Lot 18 and Lot 19 as earlier proposed by
vs. the plaintiff, is no longer feasible considering that plaintiff
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Second Division, Manila, is no longer the owner of Lot 19, otherwise, defendant will
HON. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, Judge, RTC, Branch 36, Sixth be losing Lot 18 without any substitute therefore (sic).
Judicial Region, Iloilo City, Upon the other hand, plaintiff will be unjustly enriching
and LUCKY HOMES, INC., represented by WILSON JESENA, himself having in its favor both Lot 19 which was earlier
JR., as Manager, respondents. mortgaged by him and subsequently foreclosed by SSS, as
well as Lot 18 where his house is presently standing.
DECISION
"The logic and common sense of the situation lean heavily
CORONA, J.: in favor of the defendant. It is evident that what plaintiff
had bought from the defendant is Lot 19 covered by TCT
No. 28254 which parcel of land has been properly indicated
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari
in the instruments and not Lot 18 as claimed by the
seeking the reversal of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals
plaintiff. The contracts being clear and unmistakable, they
dated December 29, 1999 and its resolution dated June 1,
reflect the true intention of the parties, besides the plaintiff
2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 54587.
failed to assail the contracts on mutual mistake, hence the
same need no longer be reformed."3
The records disclose that, sometime in 1970, petitioner-
spouses purchased a parcel of land from private
On June 22, 1998, a writ of execution was issued by the trial
respondent Lucky Homes, Inc., situated in Iloilo and
court. Thus, on September 17, 1998, petitioners filed an
containing an area of 240 square meters. Said lot was
urgent motion to recall writ of execution, alleging that the
specifically denominated as Lot No. 19 under Transfer
court a quo had no jurisdiction to try the case as it was
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 28254 and was mortgaged to
vested in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
the Social Security System (SSS) as security for their housing
(HLURB) pursuant to PD 957 (The Subdivision and
loan. Petitioners then started the construction of their
Condominium Buyers Protective Decree). Conformably,
house, not on Lot No. 19 but on Lot No. 18, as private
petitioners filed a new complaint against private
respondent mistakenly identified Lot No. 18 as Lot No. 19.
respondent with the HLURB. Likewise, on June 30, 1999,
Upon realizing its error, private respondent, through its
petitioner-spouses filed before the Court of Appeals a
general manager, informed petitioners of such mistake but
petition for annulment of judgment, premised on the estops such party from later challenging that same courts
ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try and jurisdiction.
decide Civil Case No. 17115.
In the case at bar, it was petitioners themselves who
In a decision rendered on December 29, 1999, the Court of invoked the jurisdiction of the court a quo by instituting an
Appeals denied the petition for annulment of judgment, action for reformation of contract against private
relying mainly on the jurisprudential doctrine of estoppel as respondents. It appears that, in the proceedings before the
laid down in the case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy.4 trial court, petitioners vigorously asserted their cause from
start to finish. Not even once did petitioners ever raise the
Their subsequent motion for reconsideration having been issue of the courts jurisdiction during the entire
denied, petitioners filed this instant petition, contending proceedings which lasted for two years. It was only after
that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition by the trial court rendered its decision and issued a writ of
applying the principle of estoppel, even if the Regional Trial execution against them in 1998 did petitioners first raise
Court, Branch 36 of Iloilo City had no jurisdiction to decide the issue of jurisdiction and it was only because said
Civil Case No. 17115. decision was unfavorable to them. Petitioners thus
effectively waived their right to question the courts
At the outset, it should be stressed that petitioners are jurisdiction over the case they themselves filed.
seeking from us the annulment of a trial court judgment
based on lack of jurisdiction. Because it is not an appeal, Petitioners should bear the consequence of their act. They
the correctness of the judgment is not in issue here. cannot be allowed to profit from their omission to the
Accordingly, there is no need to delve into the propriety of damage and prejudice of the private respondent. This Court
the decision rendered by the trial court. frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting
his case for decision and then accepting the judgment but
Petitioners claim that the recent decisions of this Court only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if
have already abandoned the doctrine laid down in Tijam vs. not.13
Sibonghanoy.5 We do not agree. In countless decisions, this
Court has consistently held that, while an order or decision Public policy dictates that this Court must strongly
rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be condemn any double-dealing by parties who are disposed
assailed at any stage, active participation in the to trifle with the courts by deliberately taking inconsistent
proceedings in the court which rendered the order or positions, in utter disregard of the elementary principles of
decision will bar such party from attacking its jurisdiction. justice and good faith.14 There is no denying that, in this
As we held in the leading case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy:6 case, petitioners never raised the issue of jurisdiction
throughout the entire proceedings in the trial court.
"A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question Instead, they voluntarily and willingly submitted
in different ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak themselves to the jurisdiction of said court. It is now too
of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record, and of late in the day for them to repudiate the jurisdiction they
estoppel by laches. were invoking all along.

xxx WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DENIED.

"It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction SO ORDERED.
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 x x x x [T]he
question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the
subject matter of the action or of the parties was not
important in such 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 a practice can not be tolerated
obviously for reasons of public policy."

Tijam has been reiterated in many succeeding cases. Thus,

in Orosa vs. Court of Appeals;7 Ang Ping vs. Court of
Appeals;8 Salva vs. Court of Appeals;9 National Steel
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals;10 Province of Bulacan vs.
Court of Appeals;11 PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,12 this Court affirmed the
rule that a partys active participation in all stages of the
case before the trial court, which includes invoking the
courts authority to grant affirmative relief, effectively