[1] The
active participation of a party in a case is tantamount to the recognition of that court‘s jurisdiction and will bar a party from impugning the court‘s jurisdiction. Jurisprudence however, did not intend this statement to lay down the general rule. (
Lapanday Agricultural v. Estita;
Mangaiag v. Catubig-Pastoral). The Sibonghanoy applies only to exceptional circumstances. The general rule remains: a court‘s lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal (
Francel Realty Corp. v. Sycip;
Concepcion v. Regalado).
[2] The doctrine of estoppel by laches in relation to objections to jurisdiction first appeared in the landmark case of
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy where the Supreme Court barred a
belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised only after an adverse decision was rendered by the court against the party raising the issue of jurisdiction and after seeking affirmative relief from the court and after participating in all stages of the proceedings. This doctrine is based upon grounds of
public policy and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
[3] The Supreme Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting one‘s case for decision, and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not (
BPI v. ALS Mgt. & Devt. Corp.).
