Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 415 views

    Tapuz Vs Del Rosario

    Uploaded by

    jevilorico
    The Tupaz family forcibly took possession of 1 hectare of land owned by the Sanson spouses in 2006. The MCTC and RTC ruled in favor of the Sansons and issued an injunction and writ of demolition against the Tupazes. The Tupazes appealed to the CA and SC, seeking a writ of amparo. However, the SC denied the writ of amparo, finding that the case involved a purely property dispute, not threats to life or security. The writ of amparo is meant to address extraordinary threats like killings or disappearances, not ordinary property or commercial concerns that can be addressed through criminal prosecution instead.

    Copyright:

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

    Tapuz Vs Del Rosario

    Uploaded by

    jevilorico
    415 views1 page
    The Tupaz family forcibly took possession of 1 hectare of land owned by the Sanson spouses in 2006. The MCTC and RTC ruled in favor of the Sansons and issued an injunction and writ of demolition against the Tupazes. The Tupazes appealed to the CA and SC, seeking a writ of amparo. However, the SC denied the writ of amparo, finding that the case involved a purely property dispute, not threats to life or security. The writ of amparo is meant to address extraordinary threats like killings or disappearances, not ordinary property or commercial concerns that can be addressed through criminal prosecution instead.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Tapuz vs 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 Tupaz family forcibly took possession of 1 hectare of land owned by the Sanson spouses in 2006. The MCTC and RTC ruled in favor of the Sansons and issued an injunction and writ of demolition against the Tupazes. The Tupazes appealed to the CA and SC, seeking a writ of amparo. However, the SC denied the writ of amparo, finding that the case involved a purely property dispute, not threats to life or security. The writ of amparo is meant to address extraordinary threats like killings or disappearances, not ordinary property or commercial concerns that can be addressed through criminal prosecution instead.

    Copyright:

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

    Tapuz Vs Del Rosario

    Uploaded by

    jevilorico
    The Tupaz family forcibly took possession of 1 hectare of land owned by the Sanson spouses in 2006. The MCTC and RTC ruled in favor of the Sansons and issued an injunction and writ of demolition against the Tupazes. The Tupazes appealed to the CA and SC, seeking a writ of amparo. However, the SC denied the writ of amparo, finding that the case involved a purely property dispute, not threats to life or security. The writ of amparo is meant to address extraordinary threats like killings or disappearances, not ordinary property or commercial concerns that can be addressed through criminal prosecution instead.

    Copyright:

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

    Tapuz et. al. vs.

    Del Rosario (Spouses Sanson)

    Facts: Issue: May a Writ of Amparo be issued for the


    Tupazes in this case? – No
    The Spouses Sanson filed a complaint before the
    MCTC of Baruanga-Malay, Aklan for forcible entry Ruling:
    with damages against the Tupaz’s (Tupaz family
    and about 120 John Does). The Sansons allege that The writ of amparo was originally conceived as a
    response to the extraordinary rise in the number of
    they own 1 hectare of land as evidenced by the TCT
    killings and enforced disappearances, and to the
    in their name. That the Tupazes, came in the perceived lack of available and effective remedies
    morning of April 16, 2006, came in to the property to address these extraordinary concerns. What it
    armed with bolos and suspected firearms, with is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are
    force and intimidation, took possession of the purely property or commercial. Neither is it a
    disputed property of the Sansons and built a nipa writ that we shall issue on amorphous and
    and bamboo structure. uncertain grounds.

    The MCTC ruled in favor of the Sansons, finding The writ shall issue if the Court is preliminarily
    satisfied with the prima facie existence of the
    that the latter had previous possession of the
    ultimate facts determinable from the supporting
    disputed land since 1993 up to 2006 when the land affidavits that detail the circumstances of how and
    was taken. The MCTC issued the injunction prayed to what extent a threat to or violation of the rights
    for. The petitioners (Tupazes) appealed to the RTC. to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party
    Upon motion of the Sansons, the RTC granted the was or is being committed.
    issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction
    and also issued a writ of demolition against the Under these legal and factual situations, we are far
    from satisfied with the prima facie existence of the
    Tupazes. The MR filed by the Tupazes was denied.
    ultimate facts that would justify the issuance of a
    writ of amparo. Rather than acts of terrorism that
    So the Tupazes went to the CA through rule 42, to
    pose a continuing threat to the persons of the
    have the Injunction and Writ of Demolition petitioners, the violent incidents alleged appear to
    reviewed. While in the CA, the sheriff of Aklan us to be purely property-related and focused on
    served the Notice to Vacate and for Demolition to the disputed land. Thus, if the petitioners wish to
    the Tupazes. Thus, the Tupazes came before the SC seek redress and hold the alleged perpetrators
    praying for 3 remedies: Certiorari under Rule 65, criminally accountable, the remedy may lie more in
    the realm of ordinary criminal prosecution rather
    the issuance of the writ of Habeas Data and the
    than on the use of the extraordinary remedy of the
    issuance of the writ of Amparo. writ of amparo.

    You might also like