Spouses Genoblazo v. Honorable Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners filed a civil case claiming ownership of lots by extraordinary acquisitive prescription and sought to enjoin respondents from demolishing structures thereon. Respondents claimed ownership based on a Transfer Certificate of Title and a Demolition Order issued by the City Engineer's Office. A restraining order was issued, enjoining demolition and further improvements. Petitioners were later cited for contempt for violating the restraining order by expanding their structures. Procedural History: The trial court denied petitioners' motion for a writ of preliminary injunction, finding their evidence of ownership by prescription to be without probative value and upholding respondents' claim based on their Torrens Title. The court also affirmed the City Engineer's authority to issue the demolition order for dangerous structures. Petitioners subsequently filed an urgent ex-parte motion for disqualification of the judge due to alleged partiality, bias, and prejudgment. The judge proceeded to set the case for pre-trial. The Petition: Petitioners assailed the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing their petition for certiorari and prohibition, which upheld the trial court's order denying the injunction and its subsequent orders setting the case for pre-trial despite the disqualification motions. Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in finding the demolition order legal, in holding certiorari as an improper remedy, and in ruling that the judge's inhibition was not called for.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to take into account an alleged conspiracy between the City Engineer and private respondents to demolish petitioners' houses in bad faith and in deprivation of due process. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the demolition order and its implementation legal and proper. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that certiorari was not the proper remedy. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the inhibition of the respondent judge was not called for.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of merit. The Court held that the findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, should not be disturbed. The demolition order was found to be within the authority of the City Engineer under the National Building Code. Certiorari was deemed an improper remedy as errors of fact or law are appealable, and the denial of the injunction was based on the trial court's findings of fact and law. The claim of conspiracy and lack of due process was not substantiated by evidence. The motion for disqualification was also dismissed for lack of proof of partiality or prejudgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged conspiracy and demolition order: The Court found no compelling reason to set aside the trial court's findings, which were affirmed by the appellate court, that petitioners were duly furnished with a copy of the demolition order and had ample time to contest it but failed to do so. The claim of deception in failing to notify petitioners was not given credence, as evidence showed they were notified. The demolition order was issued by the City Engineer within his authority under the National Building Code for dangerous and ruinous structures, and this power is not precluded by the fact that the buildings might also constitute nuisances under the Civil Code. The Court reiterated that findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed except for strong and cogent reasons. Furthermore, the Court found petitioners' contention regarding judicial admissions to be untenable. The phraseology used by respondents in their answer did not connote acknowledgment of petitioners' ownership. Furthermore, petitioners, as tenants of the former owner, could not deny the title of the private respondents, who acquired ownership through a deed of absolute sale and subsequent Torrens Title. The Court emphasized that a title obtained under the Torrens System is indefeasible and cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. On the legality and propriety of the demolition order and its implementation: The Court held that certiorari is not the proper remedy to correct errors of fact or law, which are correctible by appeal. The trial court's denial of the preliminary injunction was based on its findings that petitioners failed to show a right to be protected and that respondents' claim of ownership based on a Torrens Certificate of Title was tenable. The issuance of a preliminary injunction rests on the sound discretion of the court, and its exercise should not be interfered with except in cases of manifest abuse. Since petitioners failed to make a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion by the trial judge in denying the writ, the appellate court correctly denied the petition for certiorari. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court ruled that the alleged partiality and prejudgment, while potentially valid reasons for voluntary inhibition, were not among the legal grounds for disqualification enumerated in Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. More importantly, no proof of such partiality or prejudgment was adduced by the petitioners. Mere suspicion is insufficient; evidence is required. The trial judge acted correctly within her sound discretion in proceeding with the case by setting it for pre-trial after deciding in favor of her own competency. On the disqualification of the judge: The Court found petitioners' contention regarding judicial admissions to be untenable. The phraseology used by respondents in their answer did not connote acknowledgment of petitioners' ownership. Furthermore, petitioners, as tenants of the former owner, could not deny the title of the private respondents, who acquired ownership through a deed of absolute sale and subsequent Torrens Title. The Court emphasized that a title obtained under the Torrens System is indefeasible and cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
Main Doctrine
A Torrens Certificate of Title is indefeasible and cannot be defeated by prescription or adverse possession. A demolition order issued by the Building Official under the National Building Code is valid if the structures are found to be dangerous or ruinous, and this is without prejudice to actions under the Civil Code regarding nuisances. Certiorari is not the proper remedy to correct errors of fact or law, which are appealable, but only to address grave abuse of discretion amounting to want or excess of jurisdiction. Mere suspicion of partiality is insufficient for disqualification; proof is required.