2) No.

For estoppel to apply, the action giving rise thereto must be unequivocal and intentional because,
if misapplied, estoppel may become a tool of injustice.

Private respondent, an unschooled farmer, in the mistaken belief that since he was merely a tenant of
the late Artemio Laurente Sr., his landlord, gave the summons to a Hipolito Laurente, one of the
surviving heirs of Artemio Sr., who did not do anything about the summons. For failure to answer the
complaint, private respondent was declared in default.

He then filed a Motion for New Trial in the same court, but such was denied. He filed before the RTC a
Motion for Relief from Judgment. Again, the same court denied his motion, hence he moved for
reconsideration of the denial. In his Motion for Reconsideration, he raised for the first time the RTC's
lack of jurisdiction. This motion was again denied.

Note that private respondent raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction, not when the case was already on
appeal, but when the case, was still before the RTC that ruled him in default, denied his motion for new
trial as well as for relief from judgment, and denied likewise his two motions for reconsideration

The fundamental rule is that, the lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action cannot be waived by the
parties, or even cured by their silence, acquiescence or even by their express consent. Further, a party
may assail the jurisdiction of the court over the action at any stage of the proceedings and even on
appeal. The appellate court did not err in saying that the RTC should have declared itself barren of
jurisdiction over the action

Citing Javier v CA, the Court reiterated: Under the rules, it is the duty of the court to dismiss an action
'whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.' (Sec. 2, Rule 9, Rules of
Court)

Thus, the ruling of the CA is affirmed. The decision of the RTC and its Order that private respondent turn
over the disputed land to petitioner, and the Writ of Execution it issued, are annulled and set aside.

DONATO VS. COURT OF APPEALS

417 SCRA 216

FACTS: Petitioner Antonio T. Donato is the registered owner of a real property located in Manila,
covered by a TCT. On June 7, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint before the MeTC of Manila for forcible
entry and unlawful detainer against 43 named defendants and “all unknown occupants” of the subject
property. Petitioner alleges that: private respondents had oral contracts of lease that expired at the end
of each month but were impliedly renewed under the same terms by mere acquiescence or tolerance;
sometime in 1992, they stopped paying rent; on April 7, 1994, petitioner sent them a written demand to
vacate; the non-compliance with said demand letter constrained him to file the ejectment case against
them.

Of the 43 named defendants, only 20 (private respondents) filed a consolidated Answer dated June 29,
1994 wherein they denied non-payment of rentals. They contend that they cannot be evicted because
the Urban Land Reform Law guarantees security of tenure and priority right to purchase the subject
property;