Statutory Construction

Case Digests on Validity of Statutes

StatConDigest - Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, GR L-21450

Facts:
Tijam filed for the recovery of Php 1908.00 with legal interest, which started from the day of filling
of complaint until the completion of the obligation against Sibonghanoy. Although the trial was
rendered in favor of plaintiffs, the writ of execution was returned unsatisfactory, so plaintiffs
moved for the execution of Surety’s bond, which was granted. Surety moved to quash the writ
but was denied.

They now appealed to the CA on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. However, CA affirmed the
previous decision. Upon receipt of notice, Surety asked for an extension of time, which was
granted. Two days later, Surety filed for a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that CFI lacked
jurisdiction in view of the effectivity of Judiciary Act of 1948 a month before plaintiffs filed for the
petition for recovery. Case was then referred to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not Motion to Dismiss filed by Surety is valid on the grounds that it was raised the
first time after decision has been rendered on the core issue.

Held:
No. The Court ruled that Surety is now barred by laches from invoking the plea only after almost
15 years, having raised the issue on lack of jurisdiction only this time. Ithas been held that after
voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late
for the loser to question the jurisdiction of the court.

Page 1 of 1