Jurisdiction over the issue

Viajar vs CA
168 SCRA 405

Facts:
Spouses Ricardo and Leonor Ladrido were the registered owner of a land (Lot No. 7511), with an area
of 154,267 square meters. The land was located in Cawayan, Pototan, Iloilo.

Spouses Rosendo and Ana Te were the registered owner of a land (Lot No. 7340). However, they sold
it to the plaintiffs, Angelica and Celso Viajar.

Later, Angelica relocated the purchased land and found out that the property was in the possession of
Ricardo. She demanded to return it, but Ricardo refused to.

February 15, 1974, Angelica and Celso filed a civil action for recovery of the possession and damages
against Ricardo. The case was amended to implead Rosendo as another defendant.

During the pendency of the case, Celso sold his rights over Lot No. 7340 to Angelica and his mother.
While, Ricardo, after his death, was substituted by his wife, Leonor and children.

During the pre-trial stage, the facts showed that the piece of real property which used to be Lot No.
7340 was located in Guibuanogan, Pototan, Iloilo. It was 20,089 square meters. That both lots (Lot
Nos. 7511 and 7340) were separated by the Suague River. The cadastral survey in 1962 revealed that
an area of 11,819 square meters of Lot No. 7340 was in possession of the defendant. An area of
14,036 which was formerly the river bed of the Suague River was also in the possession of the
defendants. And, the plaintiff was never in possession of the said property.

One of the issues raised by the plaintiff was (sa RTC):

Whether the change in the course of the Suague River was sudden as claimed by the plaintiffs
or gradual as contended by the defendants.

The RTC rendered in favor of the defendant, that the change of course of the river was gradual. The
plaintiffs appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed the decision of RTC. Thus the petition.

Plaintiffs contend that the first issue raised during the trial in RTC (whether the change in the course
of the Suague River was sudden as claimed by the plaintiffs or gradual as contended by the defendants)
was abandoned and never raised by them in their appeal to the CA. According to the plaintiffs, when
the CA disposed of the appeal on an issue that was never raised, makes its decision null and void.

ISSUE: (Related to Civil Procedure)

Whether the decision of the appellate court is void on the principle that a court of justice has no
jurisdiction or power to decide a question not in issue.

HELD: NO. The decision of the appellate court is valid. The pivotal issue in the petitioner’s appeal was
whether the change in the course of the river was gradual or sudden because the trial court below
resolved the same in its decision thus subjecting the same to review by the respondent appellate
court. By simply abandoning this issue, the petitioner cannot hope that the affirmance of the decision
wherein this issue was resolved makes the decision of the CA void.

The petitioners are expounding a new procedural theory that render a questioned decision void. All
that has to be done in order is to simply abandon on appeal the pivotal issue as resolved by the lower
court and when its decision is affirmed on appeal, attack the decision of the appellate court as void on
the principle that a court has no jurisdiction or power to decide the question not in issue.