G.R. No. 167400 - Rigor vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners, comprising members of the Rigor family, initiated a suit for an injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order against the private respondent.
The subject matter concerns an alleged right-of-way over a portion of the respondent’s property, which petitioners claim entitles them to access their own property without obstruction.

The case originated in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City where petitioners secured a favorable judgment concerning the contested right-of-way.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 80772 and later denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration through a resolution dated January 21, 2005.
Petitioners subsequently filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the CA decision and the subsequent resolution.

The dispute turns on whether the private respondent has the right to construct a gate and erect a fence, which would block the alleged right-of-way.
Petitioners contend that the CA’s decision improperly tackled the issue by focusing on the petitioners’ right to use the right-of-way instead of addressing whether the respondent could legally obstruct it.
It is further argued that the CA erred by relying on unsubstantiated allegations (e.g., the non-appearance of Ligaya Rodriguez, allegedly the owner of the property in question) to dismiss petitioners’ claim.

Petitioners insist that the CA abandoned the original issue of whether they possess a right-of-way, opting instead to decide on their alleged lack of use or entitlement to the same.
They allege that the appellate court’s review was marred by an error of law, as the CA concentrated on an issue that was not central to the petitioners’ original filing.
The underlying complaint, as seen from the RTC records, clearly sought to enjoin the respondent from any construction that would hinder the petitioners’ access.

Whether the CA acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the RTC decision.
Whether errors that merely constitute an error in judgment (rather than a jurisdictional error) justify a petition for certiorari.

Whether petitioners are entitled to the claimed right-of-way and whether the CA's focus on the petitioners’ use of the right-of-way was the proper issue for resolution.
Whether petitioners’ failure to timely exercise the appeal under Rule 45 (a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy) barred their recourse to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.