Scribd
Upload
46 views2 pages

Today Is Monday, January 23, 2017: Writ of Amparo

The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a petition seeking a writ of amparo. The petitioners, who were settlers in a parcel of land in Pasig City, sought the writ after their dwellings were demolished or about to be demolished pursuant to a court judgment. However, the Court ruled the threatened demolition was not covered by the writ of amparo, which protects rights to life, liberty and security from unlawful acts by public or private entities. As the petitioners' claim to the land had already been settled in previous cases, there was no legal basis to issue the writ.

Uploaded by

Gracey Pelagio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
46 views2 pages

Today Is Monday, January 23, 2017: Writ of Amparo

The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a petition seeking a writ of amparo. The petitioners, who were settlers in a parcel of land in Pasig City, sought the writ after their dwellings were demolished or about to be demolished pursuant to a court judgment. However, the Court ruled the threatened demolition was not covered by the writ of amparo, which protects rights to life, liberty and security from unlawful acts by public or private entities. As the petitioners' claim to the land had already been settled in previous cases, there was no legal basis to issue the writ.

Uploaded by

Gracey Pelagio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1/23/2017

G.R.No.182795

TodayisMonday,January23,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.182795June5,2008
ARMANDOQ.CANLAS,MIGUELD.CAPISTRANO,MARRIETAPIA,petitioners,
vs.
NAPICOHOMEOWNERSASSN.,IXIII,INC.,ETAL.,respondents.
RESOLUTION
REYES,R.T.,J.:
THEpresentpetitionfiledonMay26,2008seekstheissuanceofaWritofAmparouponthefollowingpremise:
Petitioners were deprived of their liberty, freedom and/or rights to shelter enshrined and embodied in our
Constitution, as the result of these nefarious activities of both the Private and Public Respondents. This
ardentrequestfiledbeforethisHonorableSupremeCourtistheonlysolutiontothisproblemviathisnewly
advocatedprinciplesincorporatedintheRulesthe"RULEONTHEWRITOFAMPARO."1
It appears that petitioners are settlers in a certain parcel of land situated in Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City.
Their dwellings/houses have either been demolished as of the time of filing of the petition, or is about to be
demolishedpursuanttoacourtjudgment.
Whiletheyattemptedtofocusonissuanceofwhattheyclaimedtobefraudulentandspuriouslandtitles,towit:
Petitionershereinaredesiroustohelpthegovernment,thebestwaytheycan,tounearththesesocalled
"syndicates"clothedwithgovernmentalfunctions,incahootswiththe"squattingsyndicates" the
lowsodefines.Ifonlytogiveitspropermeanings,theGovernmentmustbethefirstonetocleans(sic)its
ranks from these unscrupulous political protges. If unabated would certainly ruin and/or destroy the
efficacyoftheTorrensSystemoflandregistrationinthisCountry.Itisthereforetheardentinitiativesofthe
herein Petitioners, by way of the said prayer for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo, that these
unprincipled Land Officials be summoned to answer their participation in the issuances of these
fraudulent and spurious titles, NOW, in the hands of the Private Respondents. The Courts of
Justice,includingthisHonorableSupremeCourt,arelikewisebeingmadetobelievethatsaidtitles
inthepossessionofthePrivateRespondentswereissueduntaintedwithfrauds.2
what the petition ultimately seeks is the reversal of this Courts dismissal of petitions in G.R. Nos. 177448,
180768,177701,177038,thus:
That,Petitionershereinknewbeforehandthat:therecanbenomotionforreconsiderationforthesecond
or third time to be filed before this Honorable Supreme Court. As such therefore, Petitioners herein are
aware of the opinion that this present petition should not in any way be treated as such motions fore
reconsideration.Solely,thispetitionisonlyforthepossibleissuanceofthewritofamparo,althoughitmight
affect the previous rulings of this Honorable Supreme Court in these cases, G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768,
177701 and 177038. Inherent in the powers of the Supreme Court of the Philippines is to modify,
reverseandsetaside,evenitsownpreviousdecision,thatcannotbethwartednorinfluencedby
anyone,but,onlyonthebasisofmeritsandevidence.Thisisthepurposeofthispetitionforthe
WritofAmparo.3
Wedismissthepetition.
TheRuleontheWritofAmparoprovides:
Section1.Petition.Thepetitionforawritofamparoisaremedyavailabletoanypersonwhoserightto
life,libertyandsecurityisviolatedorthreatenedwithviolationbyanunlawfulactoromissionofapublic
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/gr_182795_2008.html

1/2

1/23/2017

G.R.No.182795

officialoremployee,orofaprivateindividualorentity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Thethreateneddemolitionofadwellingbyvirtueofafinaljudgmentofthecourt,whichinthiscasewasaffirmed
withfinalitybythisCourtinG.R.Nos.177448,180768,177701,177038,isnotincludedamongtheenumeration
of rights as stated in the abovequoted Section 1 for which the remedy of a writ of amparo is made available.
Their claim to their dwelling, assuming they still have any despite the final and executory judgment adverse to
them,doesnotconstituterighttolife,libertyandsecurity.Thereis,therefore,nolegalbasisfortheissuanceof
thewritofamparo.
Besides,thefactualandlegalbasisforpetitionersclaimtothelandinquestionisnotallegedinthepetitionatall.
TheCourtcanonlysurmisethattheserightsandinteresthadalreadybeenthreshedoutandsettledinthefour
casescitedabove.Nowritofamparomaybeissuedunlessthereisaclearallegationofthesupposedfactualand
legalbasisoftherightsoughttobeprotected.
UnderSection6ofthesamerules,thecourtshallissuethewrituponthefilingofthepetition,onlyifonitsface,
thecourtoughttoissuesaidwrit.
Section6.IssuanceoftheWrit.Uponthefilingofthepetition,thecourt,justiceorjudgeshallimmediately
ordertheissuanceofthewritifonitsfaceitoughttoissue.Theclerkofcourtshallissuethewritunderthe
sealofthecourtorincaseofurgentnecessity,thejusticeorthejudgemayissuethewritunderhisorher
ownhand,andmaydeputizeanyofficerorpersontoserveit.
Thewritshallalsosetthedateandtimeforsummaryhearingofthepetitionwhichshallnotbelaterthan
seven(7)daysfromthedateofitsissuance.
Consideringthatthereisnolegalbasisforitsissuance,asinthiscase,thewritwillnotbeissuedandthepetition
willbedismissedoutright.
This new remedy of writ of amparo which is made available by this Court is intended for the protection of the
highestpossiblerightsofanyperson,whichishisorherrighttolife,libertyandsecurity.TheCourtwillnotspare
any time or effort on its part in order to give priority to petitions of this nature. However, the Court will also not
wasteitsprecioustimeandeffortonmattersnotcoveredbythewrit.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, YnaresSantiago, Carpio, AustriaMartinez, Corona, CarpioMorales*, Azcuna, Tinga,
ChicoNazario,Velasco,Jr.**,Nachura***,LeonardodeCastro,Brion,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
*OnofficialleaveperSpecialOrderNo.505datedMay15,2008.
**OnofficialleaveperSpecialOrderNo.504datedMay15,2008.
***OnofficialleaveperSpecialOrderNo.507datedMay28,2008.
1Rollo,p.6.
2Id.at67.
3Id.at1011.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/gr_182795_2008.html

2/2

You might also like