G.R. No. L-26417 January 30, 1970
VALENTIN A. FERNANDO, petitioner, vs. HON. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ Judge Presiding Branch V, Court of First Instance of Manila; PELAGIA FERNANDO SANTOS and PABLO G. SANTOS, respondents.

FACTS

Prior to October 1961, lessees of market stalls on a property known as Folgueras Remnants Center filed an interpleader suit to determine the lawful owner entitled to receive rentals. The Court of First Instance of Manila declared petitioner Valentin A. Fernando the owner, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals and which became final after this Court dismissed the petition for review. Respondents Pelagia Fernando Santos (Fernando’s daughter) and her husband Pablo G. Santos occupied the second floor of the building on the property. After demands to vacate were refused, petitioner filed an unlawful detainer complaint in the City Court of Manila on May 24, 1965. The city court ordered the spouses to vacate and pay compensation. The spouses then filed a petition for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Manila, assailing the city court’s jurisdiction on the ground that they had been in adverse possession for over a year, making the proper action accion publiciana, not unlawful detainer. The Court of First Instance, through respondent Judge Conrado M. Vasquez, ruled in favor of the spouses, declared the city court without jurisdiction, and nullified its proceedings. Petitioner attempted to appeal this decision, but this Court dismissed his appeal for failure to pay the docket fee on time. Petitioner then initiated the present certiorari proceedings before this Court on August 17, 1966. Subsequently, on September 20, 1966, the parties entered into an amicable settlement in a related case before the Court of Appeals, wherein the respondent spouses agreed to vacate the premises and withdraw their petition, and petitioner agreed to retain the existing tenants.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the decision of the respondent judge declaring the city court without jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case.

RULING

The petition for certiorari must fail. First, certiorari lies only for errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The respondent judge had jurisdiction to render the decision; any alleged error in his appreciation of facts and law was an error of judgment correctible by appeal, not certiorari. Second, certiorari is not available where an appeal is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Petitioner had the remedy of appeal but lost it through his own fault (failure to pay the docket fee). Certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. Third, the case has become moot and academic due to the supervening amicable settlement between the parties, wherein the respondent spouses vacated the premises. A judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata. Any decision on the merits would be of no practical value, as the controversy has been extinguished. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.