04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly ground for the dismissal of an action, the following requisites must concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case."[76] The third element is missing, for any judgment in the certification case would not constitute res judicata or be conclusive on the ownership issue involved in the reivindicatory case. Since there is no litis pendentia, there is no reason for the reivindicatory case to be suspended or dismissed in favor of the certification case. Moreover, since there is no litis pendentia, we cannot agree with petitioners' contention that respondent committed forum-shopping. Settled is the rule that "forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other."[77] Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to decide the case in light of the effectivity of RA 8371 or the Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997 at the time that the complaint was instituted For the first time in the entire proceedings of this case, petitioners raise the trial court's alleged lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter in light of the effectivity[78] of the IPRA at the time that the complaint was filed in 1998. They maintain that, under the IPRA, it is the NCIP which has jurisdiction over land disputes involving indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples. As a rule, an objection over subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time of the proceedings. This is because jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties or vested by the agreement of the parties. Jurisdiction is vested by law, which prevails at the time of the filing of the complaint. An exception to this rule has been carved by jurisprudence. In the seminal case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy,[79] the Court ruled that the existence of laches will prevent a party from raising the court's lack of jurisdiction. Laches is defined as the "failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it."[80] Wisely, some cases[81] have cautioned against applying Tijam, except for the most exceptional cases where the factual milieu is similar to Tijam. In Tijam, the surety could have raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction in the trial court but failed to do so. Instead, the surety participated in the proceedings and filed pleadings, other than a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. When the case reached the appellate court, the surety again participated in the case and filed their pleadings therein. It was only after receiving the appellate court's adverse decision that the surety awoke from its slumber and filed a motion to dismiss, in lieu of a motion for reconsideration. The CA certified the matter to this Court, which then ruled that the surety was already barred by laches from raising the jurisdiction issue. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54595 11/17