Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 172 views

    1 Tapuz V Del Rosario

    Uploaded by

    gongsilog
    The petitioners sought a writ of amparo to prevent their eviction from disputed land after a lower court ruled in favor of the respondents in a forcible entry case. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy intended to address threats to life, liberty or security, not purely property or commercial disputes. It requires allegations supporting the existence of facts justifying its issuance. In this case, the violent incidents appeared to be property-related regarding the disputed land, not acts of terrorism threatening the petitioners. Criminal prosecution was a more appropriate remedy than the extraordinary writ of amparo.

    Copyright:

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

    1 Tapuz V Del Rosario

    Uploaded by

    gongsilog
    172 views1 page
    The petitioners sought a writ of amparo to prevent their eviction from disputed land after a lower court ruled in favor of the respondents in a forcible entry case. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy intended to address threats to life, liberty or security, not purely property or commercial disputes. It requires allegations supporting the existence of facts justifying its issuance. In this case, the violent incidents appeared to be property-related regarding the disputed land, not acts of terrorism threatening the petitioners. Criminal prosecution was a more appropriate remedy than the extraordinary writ of amparo.

    Original Title

    1 Tapuz v Del Rosario

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners sought a writ of amparo to prevent their eviction from disputed land after a lower court ruled in favor of the respondents in a forcible entry case. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy intended to address threats to life, liberty or security, not purely property or commercial disputes. It requires allegations supporting the existence of facts justifying its issuance. In this case, the violent incidents appeared to be property-related regarding the disputed land, not acts of terrorism threatening the petitioners. Criminal prosecution was a more appropriate remedy than the extraordinary writ of amparo.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    172 views1 page

    1 Tapuz V Del Rosario

    Uploaded by

    gongsilog
    The petitioners sought a writ of amparo to prevent their eviction from disputed land after a lower court ruled in favor of the respondents in a forcible entry case. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy intended to address threats to life, liberty or security, not purely property or commercial disputes. It requires allegations supporting the existence of facts justifying its issuance. In this case, the violent incidents appeared to be property-related regarding the disputed land, not acts of terrorism threatening the petitioners. Criminal prosecution was a more appropriate remedy than the extraordinary writ of amparo.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    G.R. No.

    182484             June 17, 2008

    DANIEL MASANGKAY TAPUZ, AURORA TAPUZ-MADRIAGA, LIBERTY M. ASUNCION,


    LADYLYN BAMOS MADRIAGA, EVERLY TAPUZ MADRIAGA, EXCEL TAPUZ, IVAN TAPUZ
    AND MARIAN TIMBAS, petitioners,
    vs.
    HONORABLE JUDGE ELMO DEL ROSARIO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC Br. 5
    Kalibo, SHERIFF NELSON DELA CRUZ, in his capacity as Sheriff of the RTC, THE PHILIPPINE
    NATIONAL POLICE stationed in Boracay Island, represented by the PNP STATION
    COMMANDER, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS IN CEBU 18 th DIVISION, SPOUSES
    GREGORIO SANSON & MA. LOURDES T. SANSON, respondents.

    FACTS:

    - Sps Sanson filed with MCTC a complaint for forcible entry and damages against petitioner Daniel
    Masangkay Tapuz, et al.
    o Sps Sanson alleged that they are the owners of the parcel of the disputed land and and
    possessors when petitioners Tapuz entered the disputed land armed with bolos and
    suspected firearms by force and intimidation with the permission of Sps Sanson.
    - Tapuz et al denied the allegations and said that they are the actual and prior possessors of the
    disputed land
    - MCTC rendered a decision in favour of Sps Sanson.
    - On appeal, Judge Marin granted Sps motion for issuance of writ authorizing the implementation
    of the MCTC decision. Said writ was actually issued by respondent Judge Elmo Del Rosario.
    - Judge Del Rosario issued writ of demolition
    - Petitioners Tapuz et al filed with CA a petition for review.
    - Petitioners filed 3 petitions which contains and prays for 3 remedies, namely: 1) a petition for
    certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court; 2) the issuance of a writ of habeas data
    under the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data; and finally, 3) the issuance of the writ of amparo
    under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.

    ISSUE:

    - Whether or not the Writ of Amparo was the proper remedy.

    RULING:

    - The petition for the issuance of the writ of Amparo is fatally defective with respect to content
    and substance.
    - To start off with the basics, the writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the
    extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the
    perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns.
    It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an
    extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or
    as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns
    that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on
    amorphous and uncertain grounds.
    - Consequently, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo - in line with the extraordinary character of the
    writ and the reasonable certainty that its issuance demands - requires that every petition for
    the issuance of the writ must be supported by justifying allegations of fact
    - Under these legal and factual situations, we are far from satisfied with the prima
    facie existence of the ultimate facts that would justify the issuance of a writ of amparo.
    Rather than acts of terrorism that pose a continuing threat to the persons of the petitioners,
    the violent incidents alleged appear to us to be purely property-related and focused on the
    disputed land. Thus, if the petitioners wish to seek redress and hold the alleged perpetrators
    criminally accountable, the remedy may lie more in the realm of ordinary criminal prosecution
    rather than on the use of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of amparo.

    You might also like