G.R. No. 79303, June 20, 1989
SPOUSES ARCANGEL GENOBLAZO and ELISA NANTES and ARELI DE FIESTA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE NATIVIDAD G. ADURRU-SANTILLAN, as the Presiding Judge of Branch XXXVIII of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, ROMULO M. DEL ROSARIO, as City Engineer and Building Official of Manila, CARMEN VDA. DE REYES, JAIME DE LOS REYES, PATROLMAN DOMINGO GUILLEN and PATROLMAN EDGAR VILLANUEVA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a civil case claiming ownership by acquisitive prescription over two lots in Manila and seeking to enjoin private respondents from demolishing structures thereon. Private respondents asserted ownership evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 160694 and relied on a Demolition Order issued by the City Engineer. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order but, upon a motion alleging petitioners’ violation thereof by expanding their structure, conducted a hearing on petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
In an Order dated July 1, 1985, the trial judge denied the writ of preliminary injunction. She found petitioners’ evidence of possession since 1947 lacking probative value, upheld the Torrens title of private respondents, and ruled the City Engineer acted within his authority under the National Building Code in ordering the demolition of dangerous structures. The order confirmed respondents’ ownership and set the case for pre-trial on unresolved issues of possession and damages. Petitioners did not move for reconsideration but instead filed a motion for the judge’s disqualification, alleging partiality and prejudgment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and upholding the trial court’s orders, specifically concerning the denial of the preliminary injunction, the propriety of certiorari as a remedy, and the denial of the motion for judicial inhibition.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the propriety of certiorari, the Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal and lies only for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Errors in the evaluation of evidence or legal conclusions are correctible by ordinary appeal, not certiorari. Petitioners’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the July 1, 1985 Order deprived them of the opportunity to correct any error and barred resort to certiorari.
On the denial of the preliminary injunction, the issuance of such a writ is discretionary upon the trial court. The trial judge did not gravely abuse her discretion in denying it, as her finding that petitioners failed to establish a clear right—based on the weakness of their possession claim against a registered Torrens title and the prima facie validity of the demolition order issued under the police power—was a valid exercise of judicial discretion.
Finally, on judicial inhibition, the alleged partiality and prejudgment are not among the mandatory grounds for disqualification under Rule 137, Section 1. While they may be valid reasons for voluntary inhibition, mere allegation is insufficient; proof is required. No such proof was adduced. The judge acted correctly in proceeding with the case, as it was within her discretion to continue after deciding in favor of her own competency, pending any appellate resolution on the inhibition issue.