G.R. No. L-24087. January 22, 1980.
NARCISO NAKPIL, POTENCIANA CALMA, RICARDO CALMA and VICENTA CALMA, petitioners, vs. HON. CRISANTO ARAGON, as Judge of the City Court of Manila, ALBETZ INVESTMENTS, INC., and THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, Narciso Nakpil and Ricardo Calma, joined their respective wives, Potenciana Calma and Vicenta Calma, in filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila. This petition sought to challenge an ejectment judgment rendered by the City Court against Vicenta Calma in Civil Case No. IV-1199712. The core allegation was that the City Court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint failed to implead Vicenta’s husband, Ricardo Calma, as an indispensable party, given that she was a married woman.
The CFI, however, dismissed the certiorari petition. It found that the City Court complaint did not disclose Vicenta Calma’s marital status, she was declared in default for not filing an answer or a motion to join her husband, the judgment had become final due to her failure to appeal, and a writ of execution had already been issued. The CFI ruled that the failure to join the husband was not a jurisdictional defect, rendering the judgment valid and final. The CFI subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari, ruling that the failure to implead the husband of a married woman defendant in an ejectment case is not a jurisdictional error that voids the judgment.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, ultimately dismissing the appeal as moot. The legal logic of the CFI’s order, which the Supreme Court implicitly sustained, is grounded in procedural finality and the nature of the alleged defect. The CFI correctly applied the precedent set in Pacquing v. Marquez, which holds that the failure to join the husband of a married woman defendant in an action is not a jurisdictional requirement. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, Vicenta Calma, was properly acquired through the summons.
Since the alleged defect was not jurisdictional, any objection on this ground was deemed waived when Vicenta Calma allowed herself to be declared in default and did not timely appeal the City Court’s judgment. A judgment that is not void for lack of jurisdiction becomes final and executory upon the lapse of the appeal period. The petitioners’ recourse to certiorari was improper, as certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The CFI thus correctly found the petition insufficient in substance. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted a manifestation from respondents that a demolition order against Vicenta Calma had already been enforced, rendering the appeal moot and academic as to her, and by extension, the other petitioners whose interests were intertwined.