Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 290 views

    CASTILLO vs. CRUZ, G.R. No. 182165

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous NqaBAy
    1. This case involves a property dispute between Amanda Cruz and her husband, who leased land from the Provincial Government of Bulacan, and the provincial government, which wanted to use the land for local projects. When the Cruzes refused to vacate the land, several cases were filed by both parties to enforce their rights. 2. Petitioners entered the property under orders from the city mayor to secure it for the provincial government. Amanda Cruz refused to turn over the property, insisting a court order enjoined the provincial government from repossessing it. This led to petitioners arresting the Cruzes for shoving them. 3. The Court held that a writ of amparo, meant to address extrale

    Copyright:

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

    CASTILLO vs. CRUZ, G.R. No. 182165

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous NqaBAy
    290 views1 page
    1. This case involves a property dispute between Amanda Cruz and her husband, who leased land from the Provincial Government of Bulacan, and the provincial government, which wanted to use the land for local projects. When the Cruzes refused to vacate the land, several cases were filed by both parties to enforce their rights. 2. Petitioners entered the property under orders from the city mayor to secure it for the provincial government. Amanda Cruz refused to turn over the property, insisting a court order enjoined the provincial government from repossessing it. This led to petitioners arresting the Cruzes for shoving them. 3. The Court held that a writ of amparo, meant to address extrale

    Original Description:

    CASTILLO vs. CRUZ, G.R. No. 182165

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. This case involves a property dispute between Amanda Cruz and her husband, who leased land from the Provincial Government of Bulacan, and the provincial government, which wanted to use the land for local projects. When the Cruzes refused to vacate the land, several cases were filed by both parties to enforce their rights. 2. Petitioners entered the property under orders from the city mayor to secure it for the provincial government. Amanda Cruz refused to turn over the property, insisting a court order enjoined the provincial government from repossessing it. This led to petitioners arresting the Cruzes for shoving them. 3. The Court held that a writ of amparo, meant to address extrale

    Copyright:

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

    CASTILLO vs. CRUZ, G.R. No. 182165

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous NqaBAy
    1. This case involves a property dispute between Amanda Cruz and her husband, who leased land from the Provincial Government of Bulacan, and the provincial government, which wanted to use the land for local projects. When the Cruzes refused to vacate the land, several cases were filed by both parties to enforce their rights. 2. Petitioners entered the property under orders from the city mayor to secure it for the provincial government. Amanda Cruz refused to turn over the property, insisting a court order enjoined the provincial government from repossessing it. This led to petitioners arresting the Cruzes for shoving them. 3. The Court held that a writ of amparo, meant to address extrale

    Copyright:

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

    CASTILLO vs. CRUZ, G.R. No.

    182165, November 25, 2009, En Banc

    Facts:
    Respondent Amanda Cruz (Amanda) who, along with her husband Francisco G. Cruz
    (Spouses Cruz), leased a parcel of land situated at Barrio Guinhawa, Malolos (the property),
    refused to vacate the property, despite demands by the lessor Provincial Government of
    Bulacan (the Province) which intended to utilize it for local projects.
    Several cases were filed by both parties to enforce their rights over the property. The
    pertinent case among the filed cases was the issuance by the MTC an alias Writ of
    Demolition in favor of the Province. Respondents filed a motion for TRO in the RTC, which
    was granted. However, the demolition was already implemented before the TRO issuance.
    On February 21, 2008, petitioners Police Superintendent Felixberto Castillo et al., who were
    deployed by the City Mayor in compliance with a memorandum issued by Governor Joselito
    R. Mendoza instructing him to protect, secure and maintain the possession of the property,
    entered the property.
    Amanda and her co-respondents refused to turn over the property, however. Insisting that
    the RTC Order of Permanent Injunction enjoined the Province from repossessing it, they
    shoved petitioners, forcing the latter to arrest them and cause their indictment for
    Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data.
    Issue:
    WON
    Amparo
    and
    Habeas
    Data
    is
    proper
    to
    property
    rights;
    WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper when there is a criminal case already filed.

    and,

    Held:
    On the 1st issue:
    Section 1 of the Rules of Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data provides that the coverage of the
    writs is limited to the protection of rights to life, liberty and security, and the writs cover not
    only actual but also threats of unlawful acts or omissions.
    Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo teaches: As the Amparo Rule was intended to
    address the intractable problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
    Tapuz v. Del Rosario also teaches: 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.
    To thus be covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents must meet the threshold
    requirement that their right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with an
    unlawful act or omission. Evidently, the present controversy arose out of a property dispute
    between the Provincial Government and respondents. Absent any considerable nexus
    between the acts complained of and its effect on respondents right to life, liberty and
    security, the Court will not delve on the propriety of petitioners entry into the property.
    It bears emphasis that respondents petition did not show any actual violation, imminent or
    continuing threat to their life, liberty and security. Bare allegations of petitioners will not
    suffice to prove entitlement to the remedy of the writ of amparo. No undue confinement or
    detention was present. In fact, respondents were even able to post bail for the offenses a
    day after their arrest.

    You might also like