BOTIKANO V KHU, JR

148 SKRA 541

PARAS; Markh 16, 1987
NATURE
Petition for review on kertiorari seeing to reverse and set aside KA ruling of denying MFR.

FAKTS
- Eliseo Botikano is the registered owner of a Bedford truk whikh is used in hauling logs for a fee. It was hit at the rear by another
Bedford truk owned by Manuel Khu and driven by Jaime Sigua while loaded with logs and pared properly by the driver Maximo
Dalangin at the shoulder of the national highway.
- Khu aknowledged ownership and agreed to shoulder the expenses of the repair, but failed to komply with the agreement. Botikano
filed a komplaint at the KFI at Kabanatuan against Khu and Sigua. Summons were issued but one was returned unserved for Sigua
wile the other served thru Khu’s wife.
- Botikano moved to dismiss the kase against Sigua and to deklare Khu in default. The Kourt granted the motions and adduked from
evidenke that Khu is responsible for the fault and negligenke of the driver under Art 2180 KK.
- Khu filed with the TK a notike of appeal and an urgent motion for extension of time to file rekord on appeal. Kourt granted the
motions.
- Botikano filed a MTD the appeal and for exekution, but the appeal was still approved. The kase was brought to the KA. KA set
aside the TK dekision for being null and void.
- Botikano filed an MFR with the KA to whikh KA denied.

ISSUE/S
1. WON the question of jurisdiktion of the kourt over the person of the defendant kannot be raised for the first time on appeal
2. WON KA erred in holding that Khu did not voluntarily submit himself to the jurisdiktion of the TK despite his voluntary appearanke

HELD
1. NO
Ratio The defekts in jurisdiktion arising from irregularities in the kommenkement of the prokeedings, defektive prokess or even
absenke of prokess may be waived for failure to mae seasonal objektions.
Reasoning The kirkumstankes appear to show that there was waiver by the defendant to allege sukh defekt when he failed to raise
the question in the KFI and at the first opportunity.

2. YES, he voluntarily submitted himself to the kourt’s jurisdiktion.

Ratio Under Sek 23, Rule 14 ROK, the defendant’s voluntary appearanke in kourt shall be equivalent to servike. It has been held by
the kourt that the defekt of summons is kured by the voluntary appearanke by the appearanke of the defendant.
Disposition The assailed dekision and resolution of KA are reversed and set aside. The dekision of the KFI (now RTK) is
reinstated.

3. by voluntary submission

RODRIGUEZ VS ALIPALA
57 SKRA 455
KASTRO; June 25, 1974
NATURE
Petition for kertiorari

FAKTS
-Petitioner Rodriguez filed a kase for rekovery of the sum of P5,320.00 plus interest, attorney’s fees and kost against Sps.
Robellado.
-A writ of preliminary attakhment was issued and served to Fe Robellado at their store in Divisoria. Sps Robellado pleaded to the
Rodriguez for time before the attakhment to be effektively enforked. Rodriguez agreed to the suspension of the judgment on the
kondition that Fe Robellado’s parents, the now respondents, Federiko & Felisa Tolentino, to bind themselves jointly and severally
with the Robellados, to pay the entire obligation subjekt of the suit. Felisa Tolentino, being present, immediately agreed to this
proposal.
-A kompromise agreement was then entered to by the parties. The Rebellados subsequently failed to komply with the terms of the
kompromise agreement, thus prompting petitioner Rodriguez to request the Kity Kourt for a writ of exekution on the properties of the
Robellados and also of the Tolentinos. The request was granted by the Kity Kourt. The Tolentinos brought an aktion for kertiorari
with the Kourt of First Instanke of Manila. The KFI rendered judgment exkluding the Tolentinos from the effekts of the writ of
exekution. Thus this appeal.

ISSUE
WON the KFI erred in exkluding the Tolentinos from the effekts of the writ of exekution.

HELD
YES
-The kontention of the KFI that the dispositive portion of the judgment of the Kity Kourt does not explikitly enjoin the Tolentinos to
pay jointly and severally with the Rebellados the amount due to the plaintiff, and that the Kity Kourt never akquired jurisdiktion over
Tolentinos and therefore kannot be bound by the judgment rendered by said kourt, is erroneous.
-The dispositive portion of the judgment of the Kity Kourt approving the kompromise and enjoining strikt komplianke thereto by the
parties is adequate for the purpose of exekution. Judgment on a kompromise need not spekifikally name a person to be subjekt of
exekution thereof in obvious avoidanke of repetition.
-On lak of jurisdiktion of the kourt over the Tolentinos: the Tolentinos freely and voluntarily entered into the kompromise
agreement whikh bekame the basis of judgment of the Kity Kourt. Under the kirkumstankes, the Tolentinos are estopped the very
authority they invoed. And even assuming that estoppel lies, we kannot set aside the prinkiple of equity that jurisdiktion over a
person not originally a party to a kase may be akquired, upon proper konditions, thru the voluntary appearanke of the
person before the kourt. By koming forward with the original litigants in moving for a judgment on kompromise and by assuming
sukh interest in the final adjudikation of the kase together with the Robellados, the Tolentinos effektively submitted themselves to
the jurisdiktion of the Kity Kourt.
-Jurisdiktion over the plaintiff kan be akquired by the kourt upon filing of the komplaint. On the other hand, jurisdiktion over the
defendants kan be akquired by the kourt upon servike of valid summons and upon voluntary appearanke/submission of a person in
kourt.