Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 121 views

    Canlas vs. Napico Homeowners - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Paolo Alvario
    The petitioners were settlers living in a parcel of land owned by respondents. The petitioners' dwellings had been demolished or were threatened with demolition pursuant to a court judgment awarding the land to the respondents. The petitioners filed a writ of amparo, claiming the respondents' land titles were fraudulent. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a writ of amparo was not the correct remedy, as the writ does not cover threats of demolition from a final court judgment. It also noted the petition did not provide enough details on the petitioners' claim to the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Canlas vs. Napico Homeowners - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Paolo Alvario
    121 views1 page
    The petitioners were settlers living in a parcel of land owned by respondents. The petitioners' dwellings had been demolished or were threatened with demolition pursuant to a court judgment awarding the land to the respondents. The petitioners filed a writ of amparo, claiming the respondents' land titles were fraudulent. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a writ of amparo was not the correct remedy, as the writ does not cover threats of demolition from a final court judgment. It also noted the petition did not provide enough details on the petitioners' claim to the land.

    Original Description:

    free case

    Original Title

    Canlas vs. Napico Homeowners.digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners were settlers living in a parcel of land owned by respondents. The petitioners' dwellings had been demolished or were threatened with demolition pursuant to a court judgment awarding the land to the respondents. The petitioners filed a writ of amparo, claiming the respondents' land titles were fraudulent. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a writ of amparo was not the correct remedy, as the writ does not cover threats of demolition from a final court judgment. It also noted the petition did not provide enough details on the petitioners' claim to the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    121 views1 page

    Canlas vs. Napico Homeowners - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Paolo Alvario
    The petitioners were settlers living in a parcel of land owned by respondents. The petitioners' dwellings had been demolished or were threatened with demolition pursuant to a court judgment awarding the land to the respondents. The petitioners filed a writ of amparo, claiming the respondents' land titles were fraudulent. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a writ of amparo was not the correct remedy, as the writ does not cover threats of demolition from a final court judgment. It also noted the petition did not provide enough details on the petitioners' claim to the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CANLAS vs NAPICO HOMEOWNERS

    GR No. 182795, June 5, 2008


    Facts
    Petitioners are settlers in a certain parcel of land situated in the Brgy. Manggahan,
    Pasig City. Their dwellings have either been demolished as of the time of filing of
    the petition, or is about to be demolished pursuant to a court judgment. Petitioners
    claim that respondents hold fraudulent and spurious titles. Thus, the petition for
    writ of amparo. The rule on writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person
    whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by
    an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private
    individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings or disappearances.
    Issue
    Whether or not the writ of amparo is a correct remedy for the petitioners.
    Ruling
    No. The writ of amparo does not cover the cause of the petitioners. The threatened
    demolition of a dwelling by a virtue of a final judgment of the court is not included
    among the enumeration of rights covered by the writ. Also, the factual and legal
    basis for petitioners claim to the land in question is not alleged at all in the petition

    You might also like