Boston Equity Resources, Inc. v. CA

Facts:

On 24 December 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the spouses Manuel and Lolita Toledo. On 7 October 2004, respondent instead filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, citing the following as grounds: xxx (2) that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel pursuant to Section 5, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court; xxx. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss for having been filed out of time. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari which the CA granted. The CA denied petitioner’s MR.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in not holding that the respondent is already estopped from questioning the trial court’s jurisdiction.

Held:

Yes. The CA erred when it made a sweeping pronouncement in its questioned decision, stating that "issue on jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding, even for the first time on appeal" and that, therefore, respondent timely raised the issue in her motion to dismiss and is, consequently, not estopped from raising the question of jurisdiction. As the question of jurisdiction involved here is that over the person of the defendant Manuel, the same is deemed waived if not raised in the answer or a motion to dismiss.

Jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is acquired through a valid service of summons; trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel Toledo.