3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

ENBANC

DANIELMASANGKAY
G.R.No.182484
TAPUZ,AURORATAPUZ

MADRIAGA,LIBERTYM.
Present:
ASUNCION,LADYLYN

BAMOSMADRIAGA,
PUNO,C.J.,
EVERLYTAPUZMADRIAGA,
QUISUMBING,
EXCELTAPUZ,IVANTAPUZ
YNARESSANTIAGO,
ANDMARIANTIMBAS,
CARPIO,

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
Petitioners,
CORONA,

*CARPIOMORALES,

AZCUNA,
versus
TINGA,

CHICONAZARIO,
HONORABLEJUDGEELMO
*VELASCO,JR.,
DELROSARIO,inhiscapacity
*NACHURA,
asPresidingJudgeofRTCBr.5
REYES,
Kalibo,SHERIFFNELSON
LEONARDODECASTRO,and
DELACRUZ,inhiscapacityas
BRION,JJ.
SheriffoftheRTC,THE

PHILIPPINENATIONAL

POLICEstationedinBoracay
Promulgated:
Island,representedbythePNP
STATIONCOMMANDER,
June17,2008
THEHONORABLECOURT

th
OFAPPEALSINCEBU18
DIVISION,SPOUSES
GREGORIOSANSON&MA.
LOURDEST.SANSON,
Respondents.
xx

RESOLUTION
BRION,J.:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

1/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

Beforeusforthedeterminationofsufficiencyofformandsubstance(pursuant to
Sections1and4ofRule65oftheRevisedRulesofCourtSections1and5oftheRuleon
theWritofAmparo

[1]
[2]
andSections1and6oftheRuleontheWritofHabeasData )is

thepetitionforcertiorariandfortheissuanceofthewritsofamparoandhabeasdatafiled
by the abovenamed petitioners against the Honorable Judge Elmo del Rosario [in his
capacity as presiding judge of RTC Br. 5, Kalibo], Sheriff Nelson de la 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, 18th Division, and the spouses Gregorio Sanson and Ma. Lourdes T. Sanson,
respondents.

Thepetitionanditsannexesdisclosethefollowingmaterialantecedents:

TheprivaterespondentsspousesGregorioSansonandMa.LourdesT.Sanson(the
private respondents), filed with the Fifth Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Buruanga
[3]
Malay,Aklan(theMCTC)acomplaint dated 24 April 2006 for forcible entry and
damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
against the petitioners Daniel Masangkay Tapuz, Aurora TapuzMadriaga, Liberty M.
Asuncion,LadylynBamosMadriaga, Everly Tapuz Madriaga, Excel Tapuz, Ivan Tapuz
andMarianTimbas (the petitioners) and other John Does numbering about 120. The
private respondents alleged in their complaint that: (1) they are the registered owners
under TCT No. 35813 of a 1.0093hectare parcel of land located at Sitio Pinaungon,
Balabag,Boracay,Malay,Aklan(thedisputedland)(2)theywerethedisputedlands
priorpossessorswhenthepetitionersarmedwithbolosandcarryingsuspectedfirearms
andtogetherwithunidentifiedpersonsnumbering120enteredthedisputedlandbyforce
and intimidation, without the private respondents permission and against the objections
oftheprivaterespondentssecuritymen,andbuiltthereonanipaandbamboostructure.

[4]
In their Answer dated 14 May 2006, the petitioners denied the material
allegations of the complaint. They essentially claimed that: (1) they are the actual and
priorpossessorsofthedisputedland(2)onthecontrary,theprivaterespondentsarethe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

2/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

intruders and (3) the private respondents certificate of title to the disputed property is
spurious.Theyaskedforthedismissalofthecomplaintandinterposedacounterclaimfor
damages.

TheMCTC,afterdueproceedings,renderedon2January2007adecision

[5]

inthe

private respondents favor. It found prior possession the key issue in forcible entry
casesintheprivaterespondentsfavor,thus:
The key that could unravel the answer to this question lies in the Amended
Commissioners Report and Sketch found on pages 245 to 248 of the records and the
evidencethepartieshavesubmitted.ItisshownintheAmendedCommissionersReport
andSketchthatthelandinquestionisenclosedbyaconcreteandcyclonewireperimeter
fenceinpinkandgreenhighlighterasshownintheSketchPlan(p.248).Saidperimeter
fence was constructed by the plaintiffs 14 years ago. The foregoing findings of the
Commissioner in his report and sketch collaborated the claim of the plaintiffs that after
theyacquiredthelandinquestiononMay27,1993throughaDeedofSale(AnnexA,
AffidavitofGregorioSanson,p.276,rec.),theycausedtheconstructionoftheperimeter
fencesometimein1993(AffidavitofGregorioSanson,pp.271275,rec.).

Fromtheforegoingestablishedfacts,itcouldbesafelyinferredthattheplaintiffs
were in actual physical possession of the whole lot in question since 1993 when it was
interruptedbythedefendants(sic)whenonJanuary4,2005claimingto(sic)theHeirsof
AntonioTapuzenteredaportionofthelandinquestionwithviewofinhabitingthesame
and building structures therein prompting plaintiff Gregorio Sanson to confront them
before BSPU, Police Chief Inspector Jack L. Wanky and Barangay Captain Glenn
Sacapao.Asaresultoftheirconfrontation,thepartiessignedanAgreement(AnnexD,
Complaint p. 20) wherein they agreed to vacate the disputed portion of the land in
questionandagreednottobuildanystructuresthereon.

TheforegoingistheprevailingsituationofthepartiesaftertheincidentofJanuary
4, 2005 when the plaintiff posted security guards, however, sometime on or about 6:30
A.M.ofApril19,2006,thedefendantssomewithbolosandonecarryingasacksuspected
to contain firearms with other John Does numbering about 120 persons by force and
intimidation forcibly entered the premises along the road and built a nipa and bamboo
structure (Annex E, Complaint, p. 11) inside the lot in question which incident was
promptly reported to the proper authorities as shown by plaintiffs Certification (Annex
F,Complaint,p.12)oftheentryinthepoliceblotterandonsamedateApril19,2006,
theplaintiffsfiledacomplaintwiththeOfficeoftheLupongTagapamayapaofBarangay
Balabag,BoracayIsland,Malay,Aklanbutnosettlementwasreachedasshownintheir
CertificatetoFileAction(AnnexG,Complaint,p.13)hencethepresentaction.

Defendants(sic)contendintheiranswerthatpriortoJanuary4,2005,theywere
alreadyoccupantsoftheproperty,beingindigenoussettlersofthesame,underclaimof
ownership by open continuous, adverse possession to the exclusion of other (sic).
(Paragraph4,Answer,p.25).

Thecontentionisuntenable.Asadvertedearlier,thelandinquestionisenclosed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

3/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

by a perimeter fence constructed by the plaintiffs sometime in 1993 as noted by the

CommissionerinhisReportandreflectedinhisSketch,thus,itissafetoconcludethatthe
plaintiffswhere(sic)inactualphysicalpossessionofthelandinquestionfrom1993upto
April 19, 2006 when they were ousted therefrom by the defendants by means of force.
ApplyingbyanalogytherulingoftheHonorableSupremeCourtinthecaseofMolina,et
al.vs.DeBacud,19SCRA956,ifthelandwereinthepossessionofplaintiffsfrom1993
toApril19,2006,defendantsclaimstoanolderpossessionmustberejectedasuntenable
because possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different
personalities.

Defendantslikewisecontendthatitwastheplaintiffswhoforciblyenteredtheland
in question on April 18, 2006 at about 3:00 oclock in the afternoon as shown in their
Certification(AnnexD,DefendantsPositionPaper,p.135,rec.).

The contention is untenable for being inconsistent with their allegations made to
thecommissionerwhoconstituted(sic)thelandinquestionthattheybuiltstructureson
thelandinquestiononlyonApril19,2006(Par.D.4,CommissionersAmendedReport,
pp.246to247),afterthere(sic)entrytheretoonevendate.

Likewise, said contention is contradicted by the categorical statements of

defendants witnesses, Rowena Onag,ApolsidaUmambong, Ariel Gac, Darwin Alvarez
and Edgardo Pinaranda, in their Joint Affidavit (pp. 143 144, rec.) [sic] categorically
statedthatonoraboutApril19,2006,agroupofarmedmenenteredthepropertyofour
said neighbors and built plastic roofed tents.These armed men threatened to drive our
saidneighborsawayfromtheirhomesbuttheyrefusedtoleaveandresistedtheintruding
armedmen.

From the foregoing, it could be safely inferred that no incident of forcible entry
happened on April 18, 2006 but it was only on April 19, 2006 when the defendants
overpowered by their numbers the security guards posted by the plaintiffs prior to the
controversy.

Likewise, defendants (sic) alleged burnt and other structures depicted in their
pictures attached as annexes to their position paper were not noted and reflected in the
amended report and sketch submitted by the Commissioner, hence, it could be safely
inferredthatthesestructuresarebuiltand(sic)situatedoutsidethepremisesofthelandin
question,accordingly,theyareirrelevanttotheinstantcaseandcannotbeconsideredas
[6]
evidenceoftheiractualpossessionofthelandinquestionpriortoApril19,2006 .

ThepetitionersappealedtheMCTCdecisiontotheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC,
Branch 6 of Kalibo, Aklan) then presided over by Judge Niovady M. Marin (Judge
Marin).

Onappeal,JudgeMaringrantedtheprivaterespondentsmotionfortheissuanceof
a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction through an Order dated 26 February 2007,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

4/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

[7]
withtheissuanceconditionedontheprivaterespondentspostingofabond.Thewrit
authorizingtheimmediateimplementationoftheMCTCdecisionwasactuallyissuedby
respondentJudgeElmoF.delRosario(therespondentJudge)on12March2007after
theprivaterespondentshadcompliedwiththeimposedcondition.Thepetitionersmoved
toreconsidertheissuanceofthewrittheprivaterespondents,ontheotherhand,fileda
motionfordemolition.

The respondent Judge subsequently denied the petitioners Motion for

Reconsideration and to Defer Enforcement of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction in an
[8]
.

Orderdated17May2007

[9]
The respondent

Meanwhile,thepetitionersopposedthemotionfordemolition.

[10]
JudgeneverthelessissuedviaaSpecialOrder
awritofdemolitiontobeimplemented
fifteen(15)daysaftertheSheriffswrittennoticetothepetitionerstovoluntarilydemolish
theirhouse/stoallowtheprivaterespondentstoeffectivelytakeactualpossessionofthe
land.

Thepetitionersthereafterfiledon2August2007withtheCourtofAppeals,Cebu
City,aPetitionforReview

[11]

(underRule42ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure)of

thePermanent Mandatory Injunction and Order of Demolition of the RTC of Kalibo,

Br.6inCivilCaseNo.7990.

Meanwhile,respondentSheriffNelsonR.delaCruzissuedtheNoticetoVacateand
forDemolitionon19March2008.

[12]

Itwasagainstthisfactualbackdropthatthepetitionersfiledthepresentpetitionlast
29April2008.Thepetitioncontainsandpraysforthreeremedies,namely:apetitionfor
certiorariunderRule65oftheRevisedRulesofCourttheissuanceofawritofhabeas
dataundertheRuleontheWritofHabeasDataandfinally,theissuanceofthewritof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

5/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

amparoundertheRuleontheWritofAmparo.

Tosupportthepetitionandtheremediesprayedfor,thepetitionerspresentfactual
positions diametrically opposed to the MCTCs findings and legal reasons. Most
importantly,thepetitionersmaintaintheirclaimsofpriorpossessionofthedisputedland
andofintrusionintothislandbytheprivaterespondents.Thematerialfactualallegations
ofthepetitionbasesaswellofthepetitionfortheissuanceofthewritofamparoread:
29.OnApril29,2006atabout9:20a.m. armed men sporting12gauge shot
gunsintrudedintothepropertyofthedefendants[thelandindispute].Theywerenot
inuniform.Theyfiredtheirshotgunsatthedefendants.Laterthefollowingdayat2:00
a.m.twohousesofthedefendantswereburnedtoashes.

30.Thesearmedmen[withoutuniforms]removedthebarbedwirefenceputup
by defendants to protect their property from intruders. Two of the armed men trained
their shotguns at the defendants who resisted their intrusion. One of them who was
identified as SAMUEL LONGNO y GEGANSO, 19 years old, single, and a resident of
Binunan,Batad,Iloilo,firedtwice.

31.Thearmedmentorchedtwohousesofthedefendantsreducingthemto
ashes.[...]

32.TheseactsofTERRORISMand(heinouscrime)ofARSONwerereported
by one of the HEIRS OF ANTONIO TAPUZ [...]. The terrorists trained their
shotguns and fired at minors namely IVAN GAJISAN and MICHAEL
MAGBANUA,whoresistedtheirintrusion.Theiractisablatantviolationofthelaw
penalizingActsofViolenceagainstwomenandchildren,whichisaggravatedbythe
useofhighpoweredweapons.

[]

34. That the threats to the life and security of the poor indigent and unlettered
petitioners continue because the private respondents Sansons have under their employ
armedmenandtheyareinfluentialwiththepoliceauthoritiesowingtotheirfinancialand
politicalclout.

35.Theactualprioroccupancy,aswellastheownershipofthelotindisputeby
defendants and the atrocities of the terrorists [introduced into the property in dispute by
theplaintiffs]areattestedbywitnesseswhoarepersonsnotrelatedtothedefendantsare
thereforedisinterestedwitnessesinthecasenamely:RowenaOnag,ApolsidaUmambong,
ArielGac,DarwinAlvarezandEdgardoPenarada.Likewise, the affidavit of Nemia T.
Carmen is submitted to prove that the plaintiffs resorted to atrocious acts through hired
[13]
menintheirbidtounjustlyevictthedefendants.

ThepetitionerspositaswellthattheMCTChasnojurisdictionoverthecomplaint
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

6/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

for forcible entry that the private respondents filed below. Citing Section 33 of The
[14]
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691,
they
maintainthattheforcibleentrycaseinfactinvolvesissuesoftitletoorpossessionofreal
propertyoraninteresttherein,withtheassessedvalueofthepropertyinvolvedexceeding
P20,000.00thus,thecaseshouldbeoriginallycognizablebytheRTC.Accordingly,the
petitionersreasonoutthattheRTCtowheretheMCTCdecisionwasappealedequally
has no jurisdiction to rule on the case on appeal and could not have validly issued the
assailedorders.

OURRULING

Wefindthepetitionsforcertiorariandissuanceofawritofhabeasdatafatally
defective,bothinsubstanceandinform.Thepetitionfortheissuanceofthewritof
amparo,ontheotherhand,isfatallydefectivewithrespecttocontentandsubstance.

ThePetitionforCertiorari

Weconclude,basedontheoutlinedmaterialantecedentsthatledtothepetition,that
thepetitionforcertioraritonullifytheassailedRTCordershasbeenfiledoutoftime.It
isnotlostonusthatthepetitionershaveapendingpetitionwiththeCourtofAppeals(the
CApetition)forthereviewofthesameRTCordersnowassailedinthepresentpetition,
althoughthepetitionersneverdisclosedinthebodyofthepresentpetitiontheexactstatus
of their pending CA petition. The CA petition, however, was filed with the Court of
Appealson2August2007,whichindicatestousthattheassailedorders(oratthevery
least,thelatestoftheinterrelatedassailedorders)werereceivedon1August2007atthe
latest.Thepresentpetition,ontheotherhand,wasfiledonApril29,2008ormorethan
eight months from the time the CA petition was filed. Thus, the present petition is
separatedinpointoftimefromtheassumedreceiptoftheassailedRTCordersbyatleast
[15]
eight(8)months,i.e.,beyondthereglementaryperiodofsixty(60)days
fromreceipt
oftheassailedorderorordersorfromnoticeofthedenialofaseasonablyfiledmotionfor
reconsideration.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

7/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

WenoteinthisregardthatthepetitionerscounselstatedinhisattachedCertificate
of Compliance with Circular #188 of the Supreme Court

[16]
(Certificate of

Compliance) that in the meantime the RTC and the Sheriff issued a NOTICE TO
VACATEANDFORDEMOLITIONnotservedtocounselbuttothepetitionerswhosent
photocopyofthesameNOTICEtotheircounselonApril18,2008byLBC.To guard
against any insidious argument that the present petition is timely filed because of this
Notice to Vacate, we feel it best to declare now that the counting of the 60day
reglementaryperiodunderRule65cannotstartfromtheApril18,2008datecitedbythe
petitionerscounsel.TheNoticetoVacateandforDemolitionisnotanorderthatexists
independentlyfromtheRTCordersassailedinthispetitionandinthepreviouslyfiledCA
petition.Itismerelyanotice,madeincompliancewithoneoftheassailedorders,andis
thusanadministrativeenforcementmediumthathasnolifeofitsownseparatelyfromthe
assailedorderonwhichitisbased.It cannot therefore be the appropriate subject of an
independentpetitionforcertiorariunderRule65inthecontextofthiscase.TheApril18,
2008 date cannot likewise be the material date for Rule 65 purposes as the above
mentionedNoticetoVacateisnotevendirectlyassailedinthispetition,asthepetitions
[17]

Prayerpatentlyshows.

Basedonthesamematerialantecedents,wefindtoothatthepetitionershavebeen
guiltyofwillfulanddeliberatemisrepresentationbeforethisCourtand,attheveryleast,
offorumshopping.

Bythepetitionersownadmissions,theyfiledapetitionwiththeCourtofAppeals
(docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.02859)forthereviewoftheordersnowalsoassailedin
thispetition,butbroughtthepresentrecoursetous,allegedlybecausetheCAdidnotact
onthepetitionuptothisdateandforthepetitioner(sic)toseekreliefintheCAwouldbe
awasteoftimeandwouldrenderthecasemootandacademicsincetheCArefusedto
resolve pending urgent motions and the Sheriff is determined to enforce a writ of
[18]
demolitiondespitethedefectofLACKOFJURISDICTION.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

8/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

Interestingly,thepetitionerscounselwhilemakingthisclaiminthebodyofthe
petitionatthesametimerepresentedinhisCertificateofCompliance

[19]
that:

xxx

(e) the petitioners went up to the Court of Appeals to question the WRIT OF
PRELIMINARYINJUNCTIONcopyofthepetitionisattached(sic)

(f)the CA initially issued a resolution denying the PETITION because it held that
the ORDER TO VACATE AND FOR DEMOLITION OF THE HOMES OF
PETITIONERS is not capable of being the subject of a PETITION FOR RELIEF,
copyoftheresolutionoftheCAisattachedhereto(underscoringsupplied)

(g)PetitionersfiledamotionforreconsiderationonAugust7,2007butuptothisdatethe
samehadnotbeenresolvedcopyoftheMRisattached(sic).

xxx

The difference between the above representations on what transpired at the

appellatecourtlevelisrepletewithsignificanceregardingthepetitionersintentions.We
discern from the petitioners act of misrepresenting in the body of their petition that
theCAdidnotactonthepetitionuptothisdatewhilestatingtherealCourtofAppeals
actionintheCertificationofCompliancetheintenttohidetherealstateoftheremedies
thepetitionerssoughtbelowinordertomisleadusintoactionontheRTCorderswithout
frontallyconsideringtheactionthattheCourtofAppealshadalreadyundertaken.

Attheveryleast,thepetitionersareobviouslyseekingtoobtainfromus,via the
present petition, the same relief that it could not wait for from the Court of Appeals in
CAG.R. SP No. 02859. The petitioners act of seeking against the same parties the
nullificationofthesameRTCordersbeforetheappellatecourtandbeforeusatthesame
time,althoughmadethroughdifferentmediumsthatarebothimproperlyused,constitutes
willfulanddeliberateforumshoppingthatcansufficientlyserveasbasisforthesummary
dismissal of the petition under the combined application of the fourth and penultimate
paragraphsofSection3,Rule46Section5,Rule7Section1,Rule65andRule56,all
oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.ThatawrongremedymayhavebeenusedwiththeCourt
of Appeals and possibly with us will not save the petitioner from a forumshopping
violation where there is identity of parties, involving the same assailed interlocutory
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

9/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

orders,withtherecoursesexistingsidebysideatthesametime.

Torestatetheprevailingrules,forumshoppingistheinstitutionoftwoormore
actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneouslyorsuccessively,onthesuppositionthatoneortheothercourtwouldmake
afavorabledisposition.Forumshoppingmayberesortedtobyanypartyagainstwhom
an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek a
favorableopinioninanother,otherthanbyappealoraspecialcivilactionforcertiorari.
Forumshoppingtrifleswiththecourts,abusestheirprocesses,degradestheadministration
ofjusticeandcongestcourtdockets.Willfulanddeliberateviolationoftheruleagainstit
isagroundforsummarydismissalofthecaseitmayalsoconstitutedirectcontempt.

[20]

Additionally,therequiredverificationandcertificationofnonforumshoppingis
defectiveasone(1)oftheseven(7)petitionersIvanTapuzdidnotsign,inviolationof
Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 7 Section 3, Rule 46 Section 1, Rule 65 all in relation with
Rule56oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.Ofthosewhosigned,onlyfive(5)exhibitedtheir
postalidentificationcardswiththeNotaryPublic.

Inanyevent,wefindthepresentpetitionforcertiorari,onitsfaceandonthebasis
of the supporting attachments, to be devoid of merit. The MCTC correctly assumed
jurisdictionovertheprivaterespondentscomplaint,whichspecificallyallegedacausefor
forcible entry and not as petitioners may have misread or misappreciated a case
involvingtitletoorpossessionofrealtyoraninteresttherein.UnderSection33,par.2of
TheJudiciaryReorganizationAct,asamendedbyRepublicAct(R.A.)No.7691,exclusive
jurisdiction over forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases lies with the Metropolitan
TrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts.Thesefirstlevel
courtshavehadjurisdictionoverthesecasescalledaccioninterdictalevenbeforethe
R.A.7691amendment,basedontheissueofpurephysicalpossession(asopposedtothe
rightofpossession).Thisjurisdictionisregardlessoftheassessedvalueoftheproperty
involvedthelawestablishednodistinctionsbasedontheassessedvalueoftheproperty
forced into or unlawfully detained. Separately from accion interdictal are accion
publiciana for the recovery of the right of possession as a plenary action, and accion
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

10/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

[21]
reivindicacionfortherecoveryofownership.
Apparently,theselatteractionsarethe
onesthepetitionersrefertowhentheyciteSection33,par.3,inrelationwithSection19,
par. 2 of The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act No.
7691, in which jurisdiction may either be with the firstlevel courts or the regional trial
courts, depending on the assessed value of the realty subject of the litigation. As the
complaint at the MCTC was patently for forcible entry, that court committed no
jurisdictionalerrorcorrectiblebycertiorariunderthepresentpetition.

In sum, the petition for certiorari should be dismissed for the cited formal
deficiencies,forviolationofthenonforumshoppingrule,forhavingbeenfiledout
oftime,andforsubstantivedeficiencies.

TheWritofAmparo

To start off with the basics, the writ of amparo was originally conceived as a
responsetotheextraordinaryriseinthenumberofkillingsandenforceddisappearances,
and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these
extraordinaryconcerns.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
availableundertheprevailingRules,orasaremedysupplementaltotheseRules.Whatit
isnot,isawrittoprotectconcernsthatarepurelypropertyorcommercial.Neither
is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds. Consequently,
theRuleontheWritofAmparoinlinewiththeextraordinarycharacterofthewritand
the reasonable certainty that its issuance demands requires that every petition for the
issuanceofthePwritmustbesupportedbyjustifyingallegationsoffact,towit:

(a)Thepersonalcircumstancesofthepetitioner

(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent

responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or
uncertain,therespondentmaybedescribedbyanassumedappellation

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

11/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party
violatedorthreatenedwithviolationbyanunlawfulactoromissionofthe
respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
attendantcircumstancesdetailedinsupportingaffidavits

(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names,

personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or
individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation,
togetherwithanyreport

(e)Theactionsandrecoursestakenbythepetitionertodeterminethe
fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person
responsibleforthethreat,actoromissionand

(f)Thereliefprayedfor.

Thepetitionmayincludeageneralprayerforotherjustandequitable
[22]
reliefs.

ThewritshallissueiftheCourtispreliminarilysatisfiedwiththeprimafacieexistenceof
theultimatefactsdeterminablefromthesupportingaffidavitsthatdetailthecircumstances
ofhowandtowhatextentathreattoorviolationoftherightstolife,libertyandsecurity
oftheaggrievedpartywasorisbeingcommitted.

Theissuanceofthewritofamparointhepresentcaseisanchoredonthefactual
[23]
allegations heretofore quoted,
that are essentially repeated in paragraph 54 of the
petition.Theseallegationsaresupportedbythefollowingdocuments:

(a)JointAffidavitdated23May2006ofRowenaB.Onag,Apolsida
Umambong,ArielGac,DarwinAlvarezandEdgardoPinaranda, supporting
the factual positions of the petitioners, id., petitioners prior possession,
private respondents intrusion and the illegal acts committed by the private
respondentsandtheirsecurityguardson19April2006

(b)UnsubscribedAffidavitofNemiaCarmenyTapuz, alleging the

illegalacts(firingofguns,etc.)committedbyasecurityguardagainstminors
descendantsofAntonioTapuz
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

12/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

(c)UnsubscribedAffidavitofMelanieTapuzySamindao,essentially
corroboratingNemiasaffidavit

(d)Certificationdated23April2006issuedbyPoliceOfficerJackson
Jauodregardingtheincidentofpetitionersintrusionintothedisputedland

(e)Certificationdated27April2006issuedbyPoliceOfficerAllanR.
Otis, narrating the altercation between the Tapuz family and the security
guards of the private respondents, including the gunpoking and shooting
incidentinvolvingoneofthesecurityguards

(f)CertificationissuedbyPoliceOfficerChristopherR.Mendoza,
narratingthatahouseownedbyJosielTapuz, Jr., rented by a certain Jorge
Buenavente,wasaccidentallyburnedbyafire.

On the whole, what is clear from these statements both sworn and unsworn is the
overriding involvement of property issues as the petition traces its roots to questions of
physicalpossessionofthepropertydisputedbytheprivateparties.Ifatall,issuesrelating
to the right to life or to liberty can hardly be discerned except to the extent that the
occurrenceofpastviolencehasbeenalleged.Therighttosecurity,ontheotherhand,is
alleged only to the extent of the threats and harassments implied from the presence of
armedmenbaretothewaistandtheallegedpointingandfiringofweapons.Notably,
none of the supporting affidavits compellingly show that the threat to the rights to
life,libertyandsecurityofthepetitionersisimminentoriscontinuing.

Acloserlookatthestatementsshowsthatatleasttwoofthemthestatementsof
NemiaCarreon y Tapuz and Melanie Tapuz are practically identical and unsworn. The
CertificationbyPoliceOfficerJacksonJauod,ontheotherhand,simplynarrateswhathad
beenreportedbyoneDannyTapuzyMasangkay,andevenmentionsthattheburningof
tworesidentialhouseswasaccidental.

AsagainsttheseallegationsarethecitedMCTCfactualfindingsinitsdecisionin
theforcibleentrycasewhichrejectedallthepetitionersfactualclaims. These findings
are significantly complete and detailed, as they were made under a fullblown judicial
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

13/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

process, i.e., after examination and evaluation of the contending parties positions,
evidenceandargumentsandbasedonthereportofacourtappointedcommissioner.

Wepreliminarilyexaminetheseconflictingfactualpositionsunderthebackdropof
adispute(withincidentsgivingrisetoallegationsofviolenceorthreatthereof)thatwas
broughttoandruleduponbytheMCTCsubsequentlybroughttotheRTConanappeal
that is still pending still much later brought to the appellate court without conclusive
resultsandthenbroughttousoninterlocutoryincidentsinvolvingapleafortheissuance
ofthewritofamparothat,ifdecidedasthepetitionersadvocate,mayrenderthepending
RTCappealmoot.

Undertheselegalandfactualsituations,wearefarfromsatisfiedwiththeprima
facieexistenceoftheultimatefactsthatwouldjustifytheissuanceofawritofamparo.
Ratherthanactsofterrorismthatposeacontinuingthreattothepersonsofthepetitioners,
theviolentincidentsallegedappeartoustobepurelypropertyrelatedandfocusedonthe
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.

NordowebelieveitappropriateatthistimetodisturbtheMCTCfindings,asour
action may carry the unintended effect, not only of reversing the MCTC ruling
independently of the appeal to the RTC that is now in place, but also of nullifying the
ongoingappealprocess.Sucheffect,thoughunintended,willobviouslywreakhavocon
the orderly administration of justice, an overriding goal that the Rule on the Writ of
Amparodoesnotintendtoweakenornegate.

Separatelyfromtheseconsiderations,wecannotfailbutconsidertooatthispoint
theindicators,clearandpatenttous,thatthepetitionerspresentrecourseviatheremedy
ofthewritofamparoisameresubterfugetonegatetheassailedordersthatthepetitioners
soughtandfailedtonullifybeforetheappellatecourtbecauseoftheuseofanimproper
remedial measure. We discern this from the petitioners misrepresentations pointed out
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

14/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

above from their obvious act of forum shopping and from the recourse itself to the
extraordinaryremediesofthewritsofcertiorariandamparobasedongroundsthatarefar
fromforthrightandsufficientlycompelling.Tobesure,whenrecoursesintheordinary
courseoflawfailbecauseofdeficientlegalrepresentationortheuseofimproperremedial
measures, neither the writ of certiorari nor that of amparo extraordinary though they
maybewillsufficetoserveasacurativesubstitute.Thewritofamparo, particularly,
should not issue when applied for as a substitute for the appeal or certiorari process, or
when it will inordinately interfere with these processes the situation obtaining in the
presentcase.

Whilewesayallthese,wenotetoothattheRuleontheWritofAmparoprovides
[24]
forrulesontheinstitutionofseparateactions,
fortheeffectofearlierfiledcriminal
actions,

[25]

andfortheconsolidationofpetitionsfortheissuanceofawritofamparowith

asubsequentlyfiledcriminalandcivilaction.

[26]
Theseruleswereadoptedtopromote

an orderly procedure for dealing with petitions for the issuance of the writ of amparo
whenthepartiesresorttootherparallelrecourses.

Where,asinthiscase,thereisanongoingcivilprocessdealingdirectlywiththe
possessorydisputeandthereportedactsofviolenceandharassment,weseenopointin
separatelyanddirectlyinterveningthroughawritofamparointheabsenceofanyclear
primafacieshowingthattherighttolife,libertyorsecuritythepersonal concern that
thewritisintendedtoprotectisimmediatelyindangerorthreatened,orthatthedanger
orthreatiscontinuing.Weseenolegalbar,however,toanapplicationfortheissuanceof
thewrit,inapropercase,bymotioninapendingcaseonappealoroncertiorari,applying
byanalogytheprovisionsonthecoexistenceofthewritwithaseparatelyfiledcriminal
case.

TheWritofHabeasData

Section6oftheRuleontheWritofHabeasDatarequiresthefollowingmaterial
allegationsofultimatefactsinapetitionfortheissuanceofawritofhabeasdata:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

15/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

(a)Thepersonalcircumstancesofthepetitionerandtherespondent
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it
affectstherighttolife,libertyorsecurityoftheaggrievedparty

(c)Theactionsandrecoursestakenbythepetitionertosecurethedataor
information
(d)Thelocationofthefiles,registersordatabases,thegovernmentoffice,
and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data or
information,ifknown
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification,
suppressionordestructionofthedatabaseorinformationorfileskeptbythe
respondent.

Incaseofthreats,thereliefmayincludeaprayerforanorderenjoiningthe
actcomplainedofand

(f)Suchotherrelevantreliefsasarejustandequitable.

Supportforthehabeasdataaspectofthepresentpetitiononlyallegesthat:

1. [ ] Similarly, a petition for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA is

prayed for so that the PNP may release the report on the burning of the
homesofthepetitionersandtheactsofviolenceemployedagainstthemby
theprivaterespondents,furnishingtheCourtandthepetitionerswithcopyof
thesame

[]

66. Petitioners apply for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA commanding

thePhilippineNationalPolice[PNP]toproducethepolicereportpertaining
to the burning of the houses of the petitioners in the land in dispute and
likewise the investigation report if an investigation was conducted by the
PNP.

TheseallegationsobviouslylackwhattheRuleonWritofHabeasDatarequiresas
aminimum,thusrenderingthepetitionfatallydeficient.Specifically,weseenoconcrete
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

16/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

allegationsofunjustifiedorunlawfulviolationoftherighttoprivacyrelatedtotherightto
life,libertyorsecurity.Thepetitionlikewisehasnotalleged,muchlessdemonstrated,any
needforinformationunderthecontrolofpoliceauthoritiesotherthanthoseithasalready
set forth as integral annexes. The necessity or justification for the issuance of the writ,
based on the insufficiency of previous efforts made to secure information, has not also
beenshown.Insum,theprayerfortheissuanceofawritofhabeasdataisnothingmore
thanthefishingexpeditionthatthisCourtinthecourseofdraftingtheRuleonhabeas
datahadinmindindefiningwhatthepurposeofawritofhabeasdataisnot.Inthese
lights,theoutrightdenialofthepetitionfortheissuanceofthewritofhabeasdataisfully
inorder.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DISMISS the present petition

OUTRIGHT for deficiencies of form and substance patent from its body and
attachments.

SOORDERED.

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

17/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

RENATOC.CORONA
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
theconclusionsintheaboveResolutionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
*Onofficialleave.
[1]
A.M.No.07912SC.
[2]
A.M.No.08116SC.
[3]
Rollo,pp.7176.
[4]
Id.,pp.87102
[5]
PennedbyJudgeRaulC.Barrios,id.,pp.108115
[6]
Id.,pp.111113
[7]
Id.,p.191
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

18/19

3/1/2015

G.R.No.182484

[8]
Id.,p.44
[9]
Id.,pp.6670
[10]
Id.,p.79
[11]
Id.,pp.117150datedandfiled2August2007.
[12]
Id.,p.116.
[13]
Id.,pp.1112
[14]
Section33.JurisdictionofMetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtsin
CivilCases.MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtsshallexercise:
[]
(3)Exclusiveoriginaljurisdictioninallcivilactionswhichinvolvetitleto,orpossessionof,realproperty,orany
interestthereinwheretheassessedvalueofthedisputedpropertyorinterestthereindoesnotexceedTwentyThousand
Pesos(P20,000.00)or,incivilactionsinMetroManila,wheresuchassessedvaluedoesnotexceedFiftyThousandPesos
(P50,000.00)exclusiveofinterest,damagesofwhateverkind,attorneysfees,litigationexpensesandcosts:Provided,
Thatincasesoflandnotdeclaredfortaxationpurposes,thevalueofsuchpropertyshallbedeterminedbytheassessed
valueoftheadjacentlots.
[15]
UnderSection4,Rules65oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.
[16]
Rollo, pp. 2728 A separate substitute compliance for the required Statement of Material Dates in petitions for
certiorariunderthesecondparagraphofSection3,Rule46,inrelationswithRules56and65oftheRevisedRulesof
Court.
[17]
Id..,p.24.
[18]
Id.,,p.9,par.23ofthePetition.
[19]
Supra,atnote16.
[20]
SpousesJulitadelaCruzv.PedroJoaquin,G.R.No.162788,July28,2005,464SCRA576.
[21]
Reyesv.Sta.Maria,No.L33213,June29,1979,91SCRA164.
[22]
Section5oftheRuleontheWritofAmparo
[23]
Atpages78ofthisResolution
[24]
SEC.21.Institution of Separate Actions. This Rule shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or
administrativeactions.
[25]
SEC.22.EffectofFilingofaCriminalAction.Whenacriminalactionhasbeencommenced,noseparatepetition
forthewritshallbefiled.Thereliefsunderthewritshallbeavailablebymotioninthecriminalcase.
TheprocedureunderthisRuleshallgovernthedispositionofthereliefsavailableunderthewritofamparo.
[26]
SEC.23.Consolidation.Whenacriminalactionisfiledsubsequenttothefilingofapetitionforthewrit,thelatter
shallbeconsolidatedwiththecriminalaction.
Whenacriminalactionandaseparatecivilactionarefiledsubsequenttoapetitionforawritofamparo,thelattershall
beconsolidatedwiththecriminalaction.
Afterconsolidation,theprocedureunderthisRuleshallcontinuetoapplytothedispositionofthereliefsinthepetition.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm

19/19