Republic of the Philippines The members of the Bulaong Group sued.

They filed
SUPREME COURT several individual complaints with the Court of First
Manila Instance seeking recovery of their stalls from the
FIRST DIVISION Mercado Group as well as damages. 1 Their theory was
anchored on their claimed ownership of the stalls
G.R. No. L-44001, June 10, 1988 constructed by them at their own expense, and their
PAZ MERCADO, CAROLINA S. CHICO, LUCIANA resulting right, as such owners, to sub-lease the stalls,
CABRERA, JOAQUIN IGNACIO, ELMER FLORES, AVELINA and necessarily, to recover them from any person
C. NUCOM, et al., petitioners, withholding possession thereof from them. Answers
vs. were seasonably filed in behalf of the defendants,
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BENIGNO PUNO, including the Municipality of Baliuag,2 after which a pre-
LOLITA C. BULAONG, FLORENTINO AGULTO, SEVERINO trial was held in the course of which the parties
SALAYSAY, SUSANA BERNARDINO, et al., respondents. stipulated upon practically all the facts.

NARVASA, J.: The Mercado Group thereafter filed motions for

The question presented by this appeal is whether or not the special civil action summary judgment, asserting that in light of the
of certiorari may be properly resorted to by a party aggrieved by a judgment of a
Regional Trial Court (or Court of First Instance)—which became final because not admissions made at the pre-trial and in the pleadings,
appealed within the reglementary period — to bring about its reversal on the no issue remained under genuine controversion. The
ground that the Court had applied the wrong provision of the Civil Code, and had
rendered summary judgment at the instance of the defendants without receiving Bulaong Group filed an opposition which, while
evidence on the issue of damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs, thereby generally stating that there were "other material
denying them due process.
allegations in the amended complaint(s)" upon which
proof was needful, actually identified only one issue of
The private respondents, hereafter simply referred to as
fact requiring "formal submission of evidence," i.e., the
the Bulaong Group, had for many years been individual
claim for actual damages " ... the exact amount of which
lessees of stalls in the public market of Baliuag, Bulacan;
shall be proven at the trial." The Bulaong Group then
from 1956 to 1972, to be more precise. The market was
filed a "Motion to Accept Affidavits and Photographs as
destroyed by fire on February 17, 1956; the members of
Annexes to the Opposition to the Motion for Summary
the Bulaong Group constructed new stalls therein at
Judgment," which affidavits and photographs tended to
their expense; and they thereafter paid rentals thereon
establish the character and value of the improvements
to the Municipality of Baliuag.
they had introduced in the market stalls. As far as the
records show, no objection whatever was presented to
Sometime in 1972, the members of the group sub-
this motion by the Mercado Group (movants for
leased their individual stalls to other persons, hereafter
summary judgment), and the affidavits and
simply referred to as the Mercado Group. After the
photographs were admitted by the Trial Court.
Mercado Group had been in possession of the market
Specifically, the Mercado Group never asked, either in
stalls for some months, as sub-lessees of the Bulaong
their motion for summary judgment or at any time after
Group, the municipal officials of Baliuag cancelled the
having received a copy of the motion to accept
long standing leases of the Bulaong Group and declared
affidavits and photographs, etc., that a hearing be
the persons comprising the Mercado Group as the
scheduled for the reception of evidence on the issue of
rightful lessees of the stalls in question, in substitution
the Bulaong Group's claimed actual damages.
of the former. The municipal authorities justified the
cancellation of the leases of the Bulaong Group by
On October 24,1975, respondent Judge rendered a
invoking the provisions of Municipal Ordinance No. 14,
summary judgment in all the cases. 3 It rejected the
dated December 14, 1964, which prohibited the sub-
claim of the Municipality of Baliuag that it had
leasing of stalls by the lessees thereof, as well as a
automatically acquired ownership of the new stalls
directive of the Office of the President (contained in a
constructed after the old stalls had been razed by fire,
letter of Executive Secretary R. Zamora dated May
declaring the members of the Bulaong Group to
29,1973) requiring enforcement of said Ordinance No.
be builders in good faith, entitled to retain possession of
14. Recognition of the Mercado Group's rights over the
the stalls respectively put up by them until and unless
stalls was subsequently manifested in Municipal
indemnified for the value thereof. The decision also
Ordinance No. 49, approved on July 5,1973.
declared that the Bulaong and Mercado Groups had
1
executed the sub-letting agreements with full judgment . . awarding damages to private respondents
awareness that they were thereby violating Ordinance (the Bulaong Group), and to restrain the respondent
No. 14; they were thus in pari delicto, and hence had no Judge and the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan from
cause of action one against the other and no right to enforcing the same." That Court rendered judgment on
recover whatever had been given or demand May 14, 1976, 5 holding that
performance of anything undertaken. The judgment (1) the summary judgment was properly rendered,
therefore decreed (1) the annulment of the leases respondent Judge (having) merely adhered to the
between the Municipality and the individuals procedure set forth by the . . . Rule (34);" and if "he
comprising the Mercado Group (the defendants who committed error in the appreciation of the probative
had taken over the original leases of the Bulaong values of the affidavits and counter-affidavits submitted
Group); and (2) the payment to the individual members by the parties, such error is merely one of judgment,
of the Bulaong Group (the plaintiffs) of the stated, and not of jurisdiction;"
adjudicated value of the stalls, with interest IF — (2) the Mercado Group had not been denied due
... the Municipality ... would insist in its right rescind or process "for failure of respondent Judge to conduct a
annul its contracts of leases with the said plaintiffs over formal trial . . (to receive) evidence on the question of
the lots on which the stalls in question are erected; for damages," since the parties were afforded the right, in
this purpose, since the private defendants become connection with the motion for summary judgment, to
immediate beneficiaries to a transfer of possession over speak and explain their side of the case by means of
the stalls in question, the Municipality .. may require affidavits and counter-affidavits; and
said private defendants .. to pay the plaintiffs the (3) since the Mercado Group had attempted to perfect
aforesaid amounts in the event that said private an appeal from the summary judgment which was
defendants and the Minucipality .. the lots on which however futile because their appeal papers "were filed
said stalls are contracted; however, unless the plaintiffs beyond the reglementary period," the judgment had
shall have been fully paid of the value of their stalls in become final and certiorari or prohibition could not be
the amounts mentioned above, they shall have the right availed of as a substitute for the group's lost appeal.
to remain in their respective stalls and in case the Once again, the Mercado Group moved for
private defendants shall refuse to pay for the value of reconsideration of an adverse judgment, and once again
the stalls in this event, the ejectment of the said private were rebuffed.
defendants from the stalls in question shall be ordered
..... The members of the Mercado Group are now before
this Court on an appeal by certiorari, this time timely
The Mercado Group and the Municipality filed on taken, assailing the above rulings of the Court of
November 14, 1975, motions for reconsideration of the Appeals. Their appeal must fail for lack of merit. No
summary judgment, notice of which had been served on error can be ascribed to the judgment of the Court of
them on November 3, 1975. These were denied, and Appeals which is hereby affirmed in toto.
notice of the order of denial was received by them on
December 18, 1975. On January 7, 1976, the Mercado Upon the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, by
Group filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond and a which this court is bound, and taking account of well
motion for extension of time to file their record on established precedent from which there is no
appeal. But by Order dated January 9, 1976, the Trial perceivable reason in the premises to depart, there is
Court directed inter alia the execution of the judgment, no question that the petitioners (the Mercado Group)
at the instance of the Bulaong Group and despite the had failed to perfect an appeal from the summary
opposition of that Mercado Group, adjudging that its judgement within the reglementary period fixed by the
decision had become final because the appeal Rules of Court. According to the Appellate Court-
documents had "not been seasonably filed." The writ
was issued, and the Mercado Group's motion to quash The summary judgment rendered by respondent Judge,
the same and to re-open the case was denied. being a final adjudication on the merits of the said
cases, could have been appealed by the petitioners. In
The Group went to the Court of Appeals, instituting in point of fact, petitioners did attempt to perfect an
that court a special civil action of certiorari and appeal from said judgment, but the attempt proved
prohibition4 "to annul that portion of the summary futile because their notice of appeal, appeal bond and
2
motion for extension of time file record on appeal were time thereafter did any one of them ever raise the
filed beyond the reglementary period. The record question.
discloses that they received copy of the summary
judgment on November 3, 1975; that on November 14, Now, jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost by any error
1975, or after the lapse of eleven (11) days from receipt in the exercise thereof that might subsequently be
of said decision, they filed their motion for committed by the court. Where there is jurisdiction
reconsideration of said decision; that on December 18, over the subject matter, the decision of all other
1975, they received copy of the order denying their questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that
motion for reconsideration; and that they did not file jurisdiction . 8 And when a court exercises its
their notice of appeal, appeal bond and motion for jurisdiction, an error committed while engaged in that
extension of time until January 7, 1976, or twenty (20) exercise does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being
days after receipt of the order denying their motion for exercise when the error is committed. If it did, every
reconsideration. The notice of appeal, appeal bond and error committed by a court would deprive it of
motion for extension were, therefore, presented one jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a
(1) day after the expiration of the 30-day period to void judgment. This, of course, cannot be allowed. The
perfect an appeal. Thus, respondent Judge correctly administration of justice would not survive such a rule.
disallowed the appeal. 9 Moreover, any error that the Court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, being merely an error of judgment, is reviewable only by appeal, not
by the special civil action of certiorari or prohibition. 10
The Appellate Court's computation of the period is
correct, and is in accord with Section 3, Rule 41 of the The petitioners do not dispute the propriety of the
Rules of Court providing that from the 30-day rendition of a summary judgment by the Court a quo, a
reglementary period of appeal shall be deducted the remedy that they themselves had in fact asked for.
"time during which a motion to set aside the judgment What they challenge is the inclusion in that judgment of
or order or for a new trial has been pending."6 an award of damages on the basis merely of affidavits,
without actual reception of evidence thereon at a
Significantly, the petitioners have made no serious hearing set for the purpose.
effort to explain and excuse the tardiness of their
appeal. What they have done and continue to do is to The challenge is not however justified by the peculiar
insist that the special civil action of certiorari is in truth circumstances of the case at bar. The petitioners, to
the proper remedy because the judgment is void. The repeat, were the parties who, as defendants, had
judgment is void, they say, because they were denied moved for summary judgment . They knew or were
due process, as "respondent Judge granted exorbitant supposed to know that, as stated by the Rules, their
damages, without reliable proof, and without giving motion would be granted if "the pleadings, depositions,
petitioners the chance to prove their claim that private and admissions on file, together with the affidavits
respondents are not entitled to damages, and show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is
conceding that they are, the damages are much lower no genuine issue as to any material fact and that ...
than that awarded by the respondent (they are) entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." 11
Judge." 7 According to them, since the matter of
damages was clearly a controverted fact, the Court had They knew that the private respondents, as plaintiffs,
absolutely no jurisdiction to determine it on mere had in fact opposed their motion and had pointed out
affidavits. precisely the need for a hearing on the controverted
matter of damages. That they did not join in the move
There can be no debate about the proposition that to have a hearing on the issue of damages is an
under the law, the Trial Court validly acquired indication that they considered it unnecessary, When
jurisdiction not only over the persons of the parties but the respondents (plaintiffs)—apparently in view of the
also over the subject matter of the actions at bar. The Court's and the defendants' indifference to the notion
parties composing the Mercado Group cannot dispute of having a hearing on the matter of damages, implicitly
this; they recognized the Court's competence when indicating the belief of the superfluity of a hearing—
they filed their answers to the complaints without presented affidavits and depositions to prove the value
questioning the Court's jurisdiction of the subject- of the improvements, for which they were seeking
matter; indeed neither at that time nor at any other reimbursement, the petitioners (defendants) did not
3
ask that the matter be ventilated at a hearing, or submit owner,13 and that he be unaware "that there exists in his
counter-affidavits, as was their right. They made no title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates
response whatever. They were evidently quite it. 14 It is such a builder in good faith who is given the
confident of obtaining a favorable judgment, and that right to retain the thing, even as against the real owner,
such an eventuality would preclude the claimed until he has been reimbursed in full not only for the
reimbursement or recovery of damages. As it turned necessary expenses but also for useful expenses.15
out, they were wrong in their prognostication.
On the other hand, unlike the builder in good faith, a
In any event, even assuming error on the Court's part in lessee who "makes in good faith useful improvements
relying on the unopposed affidavits and photographs as which are suitable to the use for which the lease is
basis for an award of damages, it was, as the Appellate intended, without altering the form or substance of the
Court has opined, not an error of jurisdiction under the property leased," can only claim payment of "one-half
circumstances, but one in the exercise of jurisdiction, to of the value of the improvements" or, "should the
correct which the prescribed remedy is appeal. This is lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, ... remove the
not to say that where a Court determines the propriety improvements, even though the principal thing may
of a summary judgment— which it may do on the basis suffer damage thereby." 16
of the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits
submitted by the parties—and discovers that there are But this error does not go to the Trial Court's
genuine issues of fact, these genuine issues may jurisdiction. It is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,
nonetheless be adjudicated on the basis of depositions, which may be corrected by the ordinary recourse of
admissions or affidavits and not of evidence adduced at appeal, not by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. It
a formal hearing or trial. This is not the rule. 12 is an error that in the premises can no longer be set
aright.
The rule is that it is only the ascertainment of the
character of the issues raised in the pleadings—as The summary judgment rendered by respondent Judge
genuine, or sham or fictitious—which can be done by on October 24, 1975 was not an interlocutory
depositions, admissions, or affidavits; the resolution of disposition or order but a final judgment within the
such issues as are found to be genuine should be made meaning of Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. By
upon proof proferred at a formal hearing. The peculiar that summary judgment the Court finally disposed of
circumstances of the case at bar, already pointed out, the pending action, leaving nothing more to be done by
operate to exclude it from the scope of the rule. It is an it with respect to the merits, thus putting an end to the
exception that should however be taken, as affirming litigation as its level .17
and not eroding the rule.
The remedy available to the petitioners against such a
The petitioners' other theory is more tenable, but will final judgment, as repeatedly stated, was an appeal in
not appreciably advance their cause. They suggest that accordance with the aforementioned Rule 41 of the
it was a mistake for the Trial Court to have accorded to Rules of Court 18 But as observed in an analogous case
the individuals of the Bulaong Group the stalls and recently resolved by this Court.19
builders in good faith in accordance with Article 526 of
the Civil Code. They are correct. It was indeed error for . . instead of resorting to ordinary remedy of appeal, ...
the Court to have so ruled. (the petitioners) availed of the extraordinary remedy of
a special civil action of certiorari in the ... (Court of
The members of this group were admittedly lessees of Appeals), under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The
space in the public market; they therefore could not, choice was clearly wrong. The availability of the right of
and in truth never did make the claim, that they appeal obviously precluded recourse to the special civil
were owners of any part of the land occupied by the action of certiorari. This is axiomatic. It is a proposition
market so that in respect of any new structure put up made plain by Section 1 of Rule 65 which lays down as a
by them thereon, they could be deemed builders in condition for the filing of a certiorari petition that there
good faith. To be deemed a builder in good faith, it is be 'no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate
essential that a person assert title to the land on which remedy in the ordinary course of law.
he builds; i.e., that he be a possessor in concept of
4
In the case at bar, the petitioners lost their right to becomes as binding and effective as any valid judgment;
appeal by failing to avail of it seasonably. To remedy and though erroneous, will henceforth be treated as
that loss, they have resorted to the extraordinary valid, and will be enforced in accordance with its terms
remedy of certiorari, as a mode of obtaining reversal of and dispositions. 25
the judgment from which they failed to appeal. This
cannot be done. The judgment was not in any sense null WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, with costs
and void ab initio, incapable of producing any legal against the petitioners.
effects whatever, which could never become final, and Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ.,
execution of which could be resisted at any time and in concur.
any court it was attempted. 20

It was a judgment which might and probably did suffer

from some substantial error in procedure or in findings
of fact or of law, and could on that account have been
reversed or modified on appeal. But since it was not
appealed, it became final and has thus gone beyond the
reach of any court to modify in any substantive aspect.
The remedy to obtain a reversal or modification of the
judgment on the merits is appeal.

This is true even if the error, or one of the errors,

ascribed to the Court rendering the judgment is its lack
of jurisdiction of the subject matter, or the exercise of
power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in
the findings of fact or of law set out in its decision. The
existence and availability of the right of appeal
prescribes a resort to certiorari, one of the requisites for
availment of the latter remedy being precisely
that "there should be no appeal. 21

There may to be sure, be instances when certiorari may

exceptionally be permitted in lieu of appeal, as when
their appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient,
and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious
effect of the judgment complained of, or to avoid future
litigations, 22 none of which situations obtains in the case
at bar. And certain it is that the special civil action
of certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal, specially
where the right to appeal has been lost through a
party's fault or excusable negligence.23

That the judgment of the Trial Court applied the wrong

provision of the law in the resolution of the controversy
has ceased to be of any consequence. As already
discussed, instead of the legal provision governing
lessees' rights over improvements on leased realty, the
judgment invoked that relative to the rights of builders
in good faith .24 But the error did not render the
judgment void. A judgment contrary to the express
provisions of a statute is of course erroneous, but it is
not void; and if it becomes final and executory, it
5