masangkay v. del rosario

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/182484.htm 1/19

ENBANCDANIELMASANGKAYTAPUZ,AURORATAPUZMADRIAGA,LIBERTYM.ASUNCION,LADYLYNBAMOSMADRIAGA,EVERLYTAPUZMADRIAGA,EXCELTAPUZ,IVANTAPUZANDMARIANTIMBAS, Petitioners,

versusHONORABLEJUDGEELMODELROSARIO,inhiscapacityasPresidingJudgeofRTCBr.5Kalibo,SHERIFFNELSONDELACRUZ,inhiscapacityasSheriffoftheRTC,THEPHILIPPINENATIONALPOLICEstationedinBoracayIsland,representedbythePNPSTATIONCOMMANDER,THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSINCEBU18thDIVISION,SPOUSESGREGORIOSANSON&MA.LOURDEST.SANSON,Respondents.

G.R.No.182484Present:

PUNO,C.J.,QUISUMBING,YNARESSANTIAGO,CARPIO,AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,CORONA,*CARPIOMORALES,AZCUNA,TINGA,CHICONAZARIO,*VELASCO,JR.,*NACHURA,REYES,LEONARDODECASTRO,andBRION,JJ.

Promulgated:June17,2008

xx

RESOLUTIONBRION,J.:

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


Beforeusforthedeterminationofsufficiencyofformandsubstance(pursuant toSections1and4ofRule65oftheRevisedRulesofCourtSections1and5oftheRuleon

theWritofAmparo[1]

andSections1and6oftheRuleontheWritofHabeasData[2]

)isthepetitionforcertiorariandfortheissuanceofthewritsofamparoandhabeasdatafiledby the abovenamed petitioners against theHonorable JudgeElmo delRosario [in hiscapacity as presiding judge of RTC Br. 5, Kalibo], Sheriff Nelson de la Cruz [in hiscapacity as Sheriff of the RTC], the Philippine National Police stationed in BoracayIsland, representedby thePNPStationCommander, theHonorableCourtofAppeals in

Cebu, 18th Division, and the spouses Gregorio Sanson and Ma. Lourdes T. Sanson,respondents.

Thepetitionanditsannexesdisclosethefollowingmaterialantecedents:TheprivaterespondentsspousesGregorioSansonandMa.LourdesT.Sanson(the

privaterespondents), filedwith the FifthMunicipalCircuitTrialCourt ofBuruanga

Malay,Aklan(theMCTC)acomplaint[3]

dated24April2006 for forcibleentry anddamages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunctionagainst the petitioners Daniel Masangkay Tapuz, Aurora TapuzMadriaga, Liberty M.Asuncion,LadylynBamosMadriaga,EverlyTapuzMadriaga,ExcelTapuz, IvanTapuzandMarianTimbas (thepetitioners)andother JohnDoesnumberingabout120. Theprivate respondents alleged in their complaint that: (1) they are the registered ownersunder TCT No. 35813 of a 1.0093hectare parcel of land located at Sitio Pinaungon,Balabag,Boracay,Malay,Aklan(thedisputedland)(2)theywerethedisputedlandspriorpossessorswhenthepetitionersarmedwithbolosandcarryingsuspectedfirearmsandtogetherwithunidentifiedpersonsnumbering120enteredthedisputedlandbyforceand intimidation,without theprivate respondentspermissionandagainst theobjectionsoftheprivaterespondentssecuritymen,andbuiltthereonanipaandbamboostructure.

In their Answer[4]

dated 14 May 2006, the petitioners denied the materialallegationsof the complaint. They essentially claimed that: (1) they are the actual andpriorpossessorsofthedisputedland(2)onthecontrary,theprivaterespondentsarethe

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


intruders and (3) theprivate respondents certificate of title to thedisputedproperty isspurious.Theyaskedforthedismissalofthecomplaintandinterposedacounterclaimfordamages.

TheMCTC,afterdueproceedings,renderedon2January2007adecision[5]

intheprivate respondents favor. It found prior possession the key issue in forcible entrycasesintheprivaterespondentsfavor,thus:

The key that could unravel the answer to this question lies in the AmendedCommissioners Report and Sketch found on pages 245 to 248 of the records and theevidencethepartieshavesubmitted.ItisshownintheAmendedCommissionersReportandSketchthatthelandinquestionisenclosedbyaconcreteandcyclonewireperimeterfenceinpinkandgreenhighlighterasshownintheSketchPlan(p.248).Saidperimeterfence was constructed by the plaintiffs 14 years ago. The foregoing findings of theCommissioner inhis report and sketchcollaborated theclaimof theplaintiffs that aftertheyacquiredthelandinquestiononMay27,1993throughaDeedofSale(AnnexA,AffidavitofGregorioSanson,p.276,rec.),theycausedtheconstructionoftheperimeterfencesometimein1993(AffidavitofGregorioSanson,pp.271275,rec.).

Fromtheforegoingestablishedfacts,itcouldbesafelyinferredthattheplaintiffs

were in actualphysicalpossessionof thewhole lot inquestion since1993when itwasinterruptedbythedefendants(sic)whenonJanuary4,2005claimingto(sic)theHeirsofAntonioTapuzenteredaportionofthelandinquestionwithviewofinhabitingthesameand building structures therein prompting plaintiff Gregorio Sanson to confront thembefore BSPU, Police Chief Inspector Jack L. Wanky and Barangay Captain GlennSacapao.Asaresultoftheirconfrontation,thepartiessignedanAgreement(AnnexD,Complaint p. 20) wherein they agreed to vacate the disputed portion of the land inquestionandagreednottobuildanystructuresthereon.

TheforegoingistheprevailingsituationofthepartiesaftertheincidentofJanuary

4,2005when theplaintiff posted securityguards, however, sometimeonor about6:30A.M.ofApril19,2006,thedefendantssomewithbolosandonecarryingasacksuspectedto contain firearms with other John Does numbering about 120 persons by force andintimidation forcibly entered the premises along the road and built a nipa and bamboostructure (Annex E, Complaint, p. 11) inside the lot in question which incident waspromptly reported to theproperauthoritiesas shownbyplaintiffsCertification (AnnexF,Complaint,p.12)oftheentryinthepoliceblotterandonsamedateApril19,2006,theplaintiffsfiledacomplaintwiththeOfficeoftheLupongTagapamayapaofBarangayBalabag,BoracayIsland,Malay,AklanbutnosettlementwasreachedasshownintheirCertificatetoFileAction(AnnexG,Complaint,p.13)hencethepresentaction.

Defendants(sic)contendintheiranswerthatpriortoJanuary4,2005,theywere

alreadyoccupantsof theproperty,being indigenoussettlersof thesame,underclaimofownership by open continuous, adverse possession to the exclusion of other (sic).(Paragraph4,Answer,p.25).

Thecontentionisuntenable.Asadvertedearlier,thelandinquestionisenclosed

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


by a perimeter fence constructed by the plaintiffs sometime in 1993 as noted by theCommissionerinhisReportandreflectedinhisSketch,thus,itissafetoconcludethattheplaintiffswhere(sic)inactualphysicalpossessionofthelandinquestionfrom1993uptoApril19,2006when theywereousted therefromby thedefendantsbymeansof force.ApplyingbyanalogytherulingoftheHonorableSupremeCourtinthecaseofMolina,etal.vs.DeBacud,19SCRA956,ifthelandwereinthepossessionofplaintiffsfrom1993toApril19,2006,defendantsclaimstoanolderpossessionmustberejectedasuntenablebecause possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two differentpersonalities.

Defendantslikewisecontendthatitwastheplaintiffswhoforciblyenteredtheland

inquestiononApril 18, 2006 at about 3:00oclock in the afternoon as shown in theirCertification(AnnexD,DefendantsPositionPaper,p.135,rec.).

Thecontention isuntenable forbeing inconsistentwith theirallegationsmade to

thecommissionerwhoconstituted(sic) the land inquestion that theybuiltstructuresonthelandinquestiononlyonApril19,2006(Par.D.4,CommissionersAmendedReport,pp.246to247),afterthere(sic)entrytheretoonevendate.

Likewise, said contention is contradicted by the categorical statements of

defendantswitnesses,RowenaOnag,ApolsidaUmambong,ArielGac,DarwinAlvarezandEdgardoPinaranda, in their JointAffidavit (pp. 143 144, rec.) [sic] categoricallystatedthatonoraboutApril19,2006,agroupofarmedmenenteredthepropertyofoursaidneighborsandbuiltplastic roofed tents. These armedmen threatened to driveoursaidneighborsawayfromtheirhomesbuttheyrefusedtoleaveandresistedtheintrudingarmedmen.

From the foregoing, it couldbe safely inferred thatno incidentof forcible entry

happened on April 18, 2006 but it was only on April 19, 2006 when the defendantsoverpowered by their numbers the security guards posted by the plaintiffs prior to thecontroversy.

Likewise, defendants (sic) alleged burnt and other structures depicted in their

pictures attached as annexes to their position paperwere not noted and reflected in theamended report and sketch submitted by the Commissioner, hence, it could be safelyinferredthatthesestructuresarebuiltand(sic)situatedoutsidethepremisesofthelandinquestion,accordingly,theyareirrelevanttotheinstantcaseandcannotbeconsideredas

evidenceoftheiractualpossessionofthelandinquestionpriortoApril19,2006[6]

.ThepetitionersappealedtheMCTCdecisiontotheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC,

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

Onappeal,JudgeMaringrantedtheprivaterespondentsmotionfortheissuanceof

awrit of preliminary mandatory injunction through anOrder dated 26 February 2007,

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


withtheissuanceconditionedontheprivaterespondentspostingofabond.Thewrit[7]

authorizingtheimmediateimplementationoftheMCTCdecisionwasactuallyissuedbyrespondentJudgeElmoF.delRosario(therespondentJudge)on12March2007aftertheprivaterespondentshadcompliedwiththeimposedcondition.Thepetitionersmovedtoreconsidertheissuanceofthewrittheprivaterespondents,ontheotherhand,filedamotionfordemolition.

The respondent Judge subsequently denied the petitioners Motion for

Reconsideration and to Defer Enforcement of PreliminaryMandatory Injunction in an

Orderdated17May2007[8]

.

Meanwhile,thepetitionersopposedthemotionfordemolition.[9]

The respondent

JudgeneverthelessissuedviaaSpecialOrder[10]

awritofdemolitiontobeimplementedfifteen(15)daysaftertheSheriffswrittennoticetothepetitionerstovoluntarilydemolishtheirhouse/stoallowtheprivaterespondentstoeffectivelytakeactualpossessionoftheland.

Thepetitionersthereafterfiledon2August2007withtheCourtofAppeals,Cebu

City,aPetitionforReview[11]

(underRule42ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure)ofthePermanentMandatoryInjunctionandOrderofDemolitionof theRTCofKalibo,Br.6inCivilCaseNo.7990.

Meanwhile,respondentSheriffNelsonR.delaCruzissuedtheNoticetoVacateand

forDemolitionon19March2008.[12]

Itwasagainstthisfactualbackdropthatthepetitionersfiledthepresentpetitionlast

29April2008.Thepetitioncontainsandpraysforthreeremedies,namely:apetitionforcertiorariunderRule65of theRevisedRulesofCourt theissuanceofawritofhabeasdataunder theRuleontheWritofHabeasDataandfinally, theissuanceof thewritof

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


amparoundertheRuleontheWritofAmparo.Tosupportthepetitionandtheremediesprayedfor,thepetitionerspresentfactual

positions diametrically opposed to the MCTCs findings and legal reasons. Mostimportantly,thepetitionersmaintaintheirclaimsofpriorpossessionofthedisputedlandandofintrusionintothislandbytheprivaterespondents.Thematerialfactualallegationsofthepetitionbasesaswellofthepetitionfortheissuanceofthewritofamparoread:

29.OnApril29,2006atabout9:20a.m.armedmensporting12gauge shotgunsintrudedintothepropertyofthedefendants[thelandindispute].Theywerenotinuniform.Theyfiredtheirshotgunsatthedefendants.Laterthefollowingdayat2:00a.m.twohousesofthedefendantswereburnedtoashes.30.Thesearmedmen[withoutuniforms]removedthebarbedwirefenceputupby defendants to protect their property from intruders. Two of the armedmen trainedtheir shotguns at the defendants who resisted their intrusion. One of them who wasidentifiedasSAMUELLONGNOyGEGANSO,19yearsold,single,anda residentofBinunan,Batad,Iloilo,firedtwice.31.Thearmedmentorchedtwohousesofthedefendantsreducingthemtoashes.[...]32.TheseactsofTERRORISMand(heinouscrime)ofARSONwerereportedby one of the HEIRS OF ANTONIO TAPUZ [...]. The terrorists trained theirshotguns and fired at minors namely IVAN GAJISAN and MICHAELMAGBANUA,whoresistedtheirintrusion.TheiractisablatantviolationofthelawpenalizingActsofViolenceagainstwomenandchildren,whichisaggravatedbytheuseofhighpoweredweapons.[]

34. That the threats to the life and security of the poor indigent and unletteredpetitioners continue because the private respondents Sansons have under their employarmedmenandtheyareinfluentialwiththepoliceauthoritiesowingtotheirfinancialandpoliticalclout.

35.Theactualprioroccupancy,aswellastheownershipofthelot indisputeby

defendantsand theatrocitiesof the terrorists [introduced into theproperty indisputebytheplaintiffs]areattestedbywitnesseswhoarepersonsnotrelatedtothedefendantsarethereforedisinterestedwitnessesinthecasenamely:RowenaOnag,ApolsidaUmambong,ArielGac,DarwinAlvarezandEdgardoPenarada. Likewise, the affidavit ofNemiaT.Carmen is submitted toprove that theplaintiffs resorted toatrociousacts throughhired

menintheirbidtounjustlyevictthedefendants.[13]

ThepetitionerspositaswellthattheMCTChasnojurisdictionoverthecomplaint

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


for forcible entry that the private respondents filed below. Citing Section 33 of The

JudiciaryReorganizationActof 1980,as amended byRepublic ActNo. 7691,[14]

theymaintainthattheforcibleentrycaseinfactinvolvesissuesoftitletoorpossessionofrealpropertyoraninteresttherein,withtheassessedvalueofthepropertyinvolvedexceedingP20,000.00thus,thecaseshouldbeoriginallycognizablebytheRTC.Accordingly,thepetitionersreasonoutthattheRTCtowheretheMCTCdecisionwasappealedequallyhas no jurisdiction to rule on the case on appeal and could not have validly issued theassailedorders.

OURRULINGWefindthepetitionsforcertiorariandissuanceofawritofhabeasdatafatallydefective,bothinsubstanceandinform.Thepetitionfortheissuanceofthewritofamparo,ontheotherhand,isfatallydefectivewithrespecttocontentandsubstance.ThePetitionforCertiorariWeconclude,basedontheoutlinedmaterialantecedentsthatledtothepetition,thatthepetitionforcertioraritonullifytheassailedRTCordershasbeenfiledoutoftime.ItisnotlostonusthatthepetitionershaveapendingpetitionwiththeCourtofAppeals(theCApetition)forthereviewofthesameRTCordersnowassailedinthepresentpetition,althoughthepetitionersneverdisclosedinthebodyofthepresentpetitiontheexactstatusof their pending CA petition. The CA petition, however, was filed with the Court ofAppealson2August2007,whichindicates tous that theassailedorders(orat theveryleast,thelatestoftheinterrelatedassailedorders)werereceivedon1August2007atthelatest.Thepresentpetition,ontheotherhand,wasfiledonApril29,2008ormorethaneight months from the time the CA petition was filed. Thus, the present petition isseparatedinpointoftimefromtheassumedreceiptoftheassailedRTCordersbyatleast

eight(8)months,i.e.,beyondthereglementaryperiodofsixty(60)days[15]

fromreceiptoftheassailedorderorordersorfromnoticeofthedenialofaseasonablyfiledmotionforreconsideration.

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


WenoteinthisregardthatthepetitionerscounselstatedinhisattachedCertificate

of Compliance with Circular #188 of the Supreme Court[16]

(Certificate ofCompliance) that in the meantime the RTC and the Sheriff issued a NOTICE TOVACATEANDFORDEMOLITIONnotservedtocounselbuttothepetitionerswhosentphotocopyofthesameNOTICEtotheircounselonApril18,2008byLBC.Toguardagainst any insidious argument that the present petition is timely filed because of thisNotice to Vacate, we feel it best to declare now that the counting of the 60dayreglementaryperiodunderRule65cannotstartfromtheApril18,2008datecitedbythepetitionerscounsel.TheNoticetoVacateandforDemolitionisnotanorderthatexistsindependentlyfromtheRTCordersassailedinthispetitionandinthepreviouslyfiledCApetition.Itismerelyanotice,madeincompliancewithoneoftheassailedorders,andisthusanadministrativeenforcementmediumthathasnolifeofitsownseparatelyfromtheassailedorderonwhich it isbased.Itcannot thereforebe theappropriatesubjectofanindependentpetitionforcertiorariunderRule65inthecontextofthiscase.TheApril18,2008 date cannot likewise be the material date for Rule 65 purposes as the abovementionedNoticetoVacateisnotevendirectlyassailedinthispetition,asthepetitions

Prayerpatentlyshows.[17]

Basedonthesamematerialantecedents,wefindtoothatthepetitionershavebeenguiltyofwillfulanddeliberatemisrepresentationbeforethisCourtand,attheveryleast,offorumshopping.Bythepetitionersownadmissions,theyfiledapetitionwiththeCourtofAppeals(docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.02859)forthereviewoftheordersnowalsoassailedinthispetition,butbroughtthepresentrecoursetous,allegedlybecausetheCAdidnotactonthepetitionuptothisdateandforthepetitioner(sic)toseekreliefintheCAwouldbeawasteoftimeandwouldrenderthecasemootandacademicsincetheCArefusedtoresolve pending urgent motions and the Sheriff is determined to enforce a writ of

demolitiondespitethedefectofLACKOFJURISDICTION.[18]

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 OFPRELIMINARYINJUNCTIONcopyofthepetitionisattached(sic)(f)theCA initially issueda resolutiondenying thePETITIONbecause itheld thatthe ORDER TO VACATE AND FOR DEMOLITION OF THE HOMES OFPETITIONERSisnotcapableofbeingthesubjectofaPETITIONFORRELIEF,copyoftheresolutionoftheCAisattachedhereto(underscoringsupplied)(g)PetitionersfiledamotionforreconsiderationonAugust7,2007butuptothisdatethesamehadnotbeenresolvedcopyoftheMRisattached(sic).xxx

The difference between the above representations on what transpired at theappellatecourtlevelisrepletewithsignificanceregardingthepetitionersintentions.Wediscern from the petitioners act ofmisrepresenting in the body of their petition thattheCAdidnotactonthepetitionuptothisdatewhilestatingtherealCourtofAppealsactionintheCertificationofCompliancetheintenttohidetherealstateoftheremediesthepetitionerssoughtbelowinordertomisleadusintoactionontheRTCorderswithoutfrontallyconsideringtheactionthattheCourtofAppealshadalreadyundertaken.Attheveryleast,thepetitionersareobviouslyseekingtoobtainfromus,via thepresentpetition, the same relief that it couldnotwait for from theCourtofAppeals inCAG.R. SPNo. 02859. The petitioners act of seeking against the same parties thenullificationofthesameRTCordersbeforetheappellatecourtandbeforeusatthesametime,althoughmadethroughdifferentmediumsthatarebothimproperlyused,constituteswillfulanddeliberateforumshoppingthatcansufficientlyserveasbasisforthesummarydismissal of the petition under the combined application of the fourth and penultimateparagraphsofSection3,Rule46Section5,Rule7Section1,Rule65andRule56,alloftheRevisedRulesofCourt.ThatawrongremedymayhavebeenusedwiththeCourtof Appeals and possibly with us will not save the petitioner from a forumshoppingviolation where there is identity of parties, involving the same assailed interlocutory

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


orders,withtherecoursesexistingsidebysideatthesametime.Torestatetheprevailingrules,forumshoppingistheinstitutionoftwoormoreactions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, eithersimultaneouslyorsuccessively,onthesuppositionthatoneortheothercourtwouldmakeafavorabledisposition.Forumshoppingmayberesortedtobyanypartyagainstwhoman adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek afavorableopinioninanother,otherthanbyappealoraspecialcivilactionforcertiorari.Forumshoppingtrifleswiththecourts,abusestheirprocesses,degradestheadministrationofjusticeandcongestcourtdockets.Willfulanddeliberateviolationoftheruleagainstit

isagroundforsummarydismissalofthecaseitmayalsoconstitutedirectcontempt.[20]

Additionally,therequiredverificationandcertificationofnonforumshoppingisdefectiveasone(1)oftheseven(7)petitionersIvanTapuzdidnotsign,inviolationofSections4and5ofRule7Section3,Rule46Section1,Rule65all in relationwithRule56oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.Ofthosewhosigned,onlyfive(5)exhibitedtheirpostalidentificationcardswiththeNotaryPublic.Inanyevent,wefindthepresentpetitionforcertiorari,onitsfaceandonthebasisof the supporting attachments, to be devoid of merit. The MCTC correctly assumedjurisdictionovertheprivaterespondentscomplaint,whichspecificallyallegedacauseforforcible entry and not as petitioners may have misread or misappreciated a caseinvolvingtitletoorpossessionofrealtyoraninteresttherein.UnderSection33,par.2ofTheJudiciaryReorganizationAct,asamendedbyRepublicAct(R.A.)No.7691,exclusivejurisdiction over forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases lies with the MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts.ThesefirstlevelcourtshavehadjurisdictionoverthesecasescalledaccioninterdictalevenbeforetheR.A.7691amendment,basedontheissueofpurephysicalpossession(asopposedtotherightofpossession).Thisjurisdictionisregardlessoftheassessedvalueofthepropertyinvolvedthelawestablishednodistinctionsbasedontheassessedvalueofthepropertyforced into or unlawfully detained. Separately from accion interdictal are accionpubliciana for the recovery of the right of possession as a plenary action, and accion

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


reivindicacionfortherecoveryofownership.[21]

Apparently,theselatteractionsaretheonesthepetitionersrefertowhentheyciteSection33,par.3,inrelationwithSection19,par. 2 of The JudiciaryReorganizationAct of 1980, as amended byRepublicActNo.7691, inwhich jurisdictionmayeitherbewith the firstlevelcourtsor the regional trialcourts, depending on the assessed value of the realty subject of the litigation. As thecomplaint at the MCTC was patently for forcible entry, that court committed nojurisdictionalerrorcorrectiblebycertiorariunderthepresentpetition. Insum, thepetition forcertiorari shouldbedismissed for thecited formaldeficiencies,forviolationofthenonforumshoppingrule,forhavingbeenfiledoutoftime,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 theseextraordinaryconcerns.It is intended toaddressviolationsofor threats to the rights tolife, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond thoseavailableundertheprevailingRules,orasaremedysupplementaltotheseRules.Whatitisnot,isawrittoprotectconcernsthatarepurelypropertyorcommercial.Neitheris itawrit thatweshall issueonamorphousanduncertaingrounds.Consequently,theRuleontheWritofAmparoinlinewiththeextraordinarycharacterofthewritandthe reasonable certainty that its issuance demands requires that every petition for theissuanceofthePwritmustbesupportedbyjustifyingallegationsoffact,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 oruncertain,therespondentmaybedescribedbyanassumedappellation

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved partyviolatedorthreatenedwithviolationbyanunlawfulactoromissionoftherespondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with theattendantcircumstancesdetailedinsupportingaffidavits

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

personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority orindividuals, 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 personresponsibleforthethreat,actoromissionand

(f)Thereliefprayedfor.Thepetitionmayincludeageneralprayerforotherjustandequitable

reliefs.[22]

ThewritshallissueiftheCourtispreliminarilysatisfiedwiththeprimafacieexistenceoftheultimatefactsdeterminablefromthesupportingaffidavitsthatdetailthecircumstancesofhowandtowhatextentathreattoorviolationoftherightstolife,libertyandsecurityoftheaggrievedpartywasorisbeingcommitted.Theissuanceofthewritofamparointhepresentcaseisanchoredonthefactual

allegations heretofore quoted,[23]

that are essentially repeated in paragraph 54 of thepetition.Theseallegationsaresupportedbythefollowingdocuments:

(a)JointAffidavitdated23May2006ofRowenaB.Onag,ApolsidaUmambong,ArielGac,DarwinAlvarezandEdgardoPinaranda, supportingthe factual positions of the petitioners, id., petitioners prior possession,private respondents intrusionand the illegal acts committedby theprivaterespondentsandtheirsecurityguardson19April2006 (b)UnsubscribedAffidavitofNemiaCarmenyTapuz,alleging theillegalacts(firingofguns,etc.)committedbyasecurityguardagainstminorsdescendantsofAntonioTapuz

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


(c)UnsubscribedAffidavitofMelanieTapuzySamindao,essentiallycorroboratingNemiasaffidavit(d)Certificationdated23April2006issuedbyPoliceOfficerJacksonJauodregardingtheincidentofpetitionersintrusionintothedisputedland(e)Certificationdated27April2006issuedbyPoliceOfficerAllanR.Otis, narrating the altercation between the Tapuz family and the securityguards of the private respondents, including the gunpoking and shootingincidentinvolvingoneofthesecurityguards

(f)CertificationissuedbyPoliceOfficerChristopherR.Mendoza,narratingthatahouseownedbyJosielTapuz, Jr., rentedbyacertainJorgeBuenavente,wasaccidentallyburnedbyafire.

On the whole, what is clear from these statements both sworn and unsworn is theoverriding involvementofproperty issuesas thepetition traces its roots toquestionsofphysicalpossessionofthepropertydisputedbytheprivateparties.Ifatall,issuesrelatingto the right to life or to liberty can hardly be discerned except to the extent that theoccurrenceofpastviolencehasbeenalleged.Therighttosecurity,ontheotherhand,isalleged only to the extent of the threats and harassments implied from the presence ofarmedmenbaretothewaistandtheallegedpointingandfiringofweapons.Notably,noneof thesupportingaffidavitscompellinglyshowthat the threat to therights tolife,libertyandsecurityofthepetitionersisimminentoriscontinuing.AcloserlookatthestatementsshowsthatatleasttwoofthemthestatementsofNemiaCarreonyTapuzandMelanieTapuzarepractically identicalandunsworn. TheCertificationbyPoliceOfficerJacksonJauod,ontheotherhand,simplynarrateswhathadbeenreportedbyoneDannyTapuzyMasangkay,andevenmentionsthattheburningoftworesidentialhouseswasaccidental.AsagainsttheseallegationsarethecitedMCTCfactualfindingsinitsdecisionintheforcibleentrycasewhichrejectedall thepetitioners factualclaims. These findingsare significantly complete and detailed, as theyweremade under a fullblown judicial

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


process, i.e., after examination and evaluation of the contending parties positions,evidenceandargumentsandbasedonthereportofacourtappointedcommissioner.Wepreliminarilyexaminetheseconflictingfactualpositionsunderthebackdropofadispute(withincidentsgivingrisetoallegationsofviolenceorthreatthereof)thatwasbroughttoandruleduponbytheMCTCsubsequentlybroughttotheRTConanappealthat is still pending stillmuch later brought to the appellate courtwithout conclusiveresultsandthenbroughttousoninterlocutoryincidentsinvolvingapleafortheissuanceofthewritofamparothat,ifdecidedasthepetitionersadvocate,mayrenderthependingRTCappealmoot.Undertheselegalandfactualsituations,wearefarfromsatisfiedwiththeprimafacieexistenceoftheultimatefactsthatwouldjustifytheissuanceofawritofamparo.Ratherthanactsofterrorismthatposeacontinuingthreattothepersonsofthepetitioners,theviolentincidentsallegedappeartoustobepurelypropertyrelatedandfocusedonthedisputed land. Thus, if the petitioners wish to seek redress and hold the allegedperpetrators criminally accountable, the remedymay liemore in the realm of ordinarycriminal prosecution rather than on the use of the extraordinary remedy of thewrit ofamparo.NordowebelieveitappropriateatthistimetodisturbtheMCTCfindings,asouraction may carry the unintended effect, not only of reversing the MCTC rulingindependently of the appeal to theRTC that is now in place, but also of nullifying theongoingappealprocess.Sucheffect, thoughunintended,willobviouslywreakhavoconthe orderly administration of justice, an overriding goal that the Rule on the Writ ofAmparodoesnotintendtoweakenornegate.

Separatelyfromtheseconsiderations,wecannotfailbutconsidertooatthispointtheindicators,clearandpatenttous,thatthepetitionerspresentrecourseviatheremedyofthewritofamparoisameresubterfugetonegatetheassailedordersthatthepetitionerssoughtandfailedtonullifybeforetheappellatecourtbecauseoftheuseofanimproperremedialmeasure. Wediscern this from thepetitionersmisrepresentationspointedout

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


above from their obvious act of forum shopping and from the recourse itself to theextraordinaryremediesofthewritsofcertiorariandamparobasedongroundsthatarefarfromforthrightandsufficientlycompelling.Tobesure,whenrecourses in theordinarycourseoflawfailbecauseofdeficientlegalrepresentationortheuseofimproperremedialmeasures, neither thewrit of certiorari nor that of amparo extraordinary though theymaybewillsufficetoserveasacurativesubstitute. Thewritofamparo,particularly,shouldnot issuewhenapplied forasa substitute for theappealorcertiorariprocess,orwhen itwill inordinately interferewith these processes the situation obtaining in thepresentcase.

Whilewesayallthese,wenotetoothattheRuleontheWritofAmparoprovides

forrulesontheinstitutionofseparateactions,[24]

for theeffectofearlierfiledcriminal

actions,[25]

andfortheconsolidationofpetitionsfortheissuanceofawritofamparowith

asubsequentlyfiledcriminalandcivilaction.[26]

Theseruleswereadoptedtopromotean orderly procedure for dealing with petitions for the issuance of the writ of amparowhenthepartiesresorttootherparallelrecourses.Where,asinthiscase,thereisanongoingcivilprocessdealingdirectlywiththepossessorydisputeandthereportedactsofviolenceandharassment,weseenopoint inseparatelyanddirectlyinterveningthroughawritofamparo in theabsenceofanyclearprimafacieshowingthat theright tolife, libertyorsecuritythepersonal concern thatthewritisintendedtoprotectisimmediatelyindangerorthreatened,orthatthedangerorthreatiscontinuing.Weseenolegalbar,however,toanapplicationfortheissuanceofthewrit,inapropercase,bymotioninapendingcaseonappealoroncertiorari,applyingbyanalogytheprovisionsonthecoexistenceofthewritwithaseparatelyfiledcriminalcase.TheWritofHabeasData

Section6of theRuleon theWritofHabeasDatarequires thefollowingmaterial

allegationsofultimatefactsinapetitionfortheissuanceofawritofhabeasdata:

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


(a)Thepersonalcircumstancesofthepetitionerandtherespondent

(b) Themanner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how itaffectstherighttolife,libertyorsecurityoftheaggrievedparty(c)Theactionsandrecoursestakenbythepetitionertosecurethedataorinformation

(d)Thelocationofthefiles,registersordatabases,thegovernmentoffice,and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data orinformation,ifknown

(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification,suppressionordestructionofthedatabaseorinformationorfileskeptbytherespondent.Incaseofthreats,thereliefmayincludeaprayerforanorderenjoiningtheactcomplainedofand(f)Suchotherrelevantreliefsasarejustandequitable.

Supportforthehabeasdataaspectofthepresentpetitiononlyallegesthat:

1. [ ] Similarly, a petition for aWRITOFHABEASDATA is

prayed for so that the PNP may release the report on the burning of thehomesofthepetitionersandtheactsofviolenceemployedagainstthembytheprivaterespondents,furnishingtheCourtandthepetitionerswithcopyofthesame

[]66.Petitioners apply for aWRITOFHABEASDATAcommanding

thePhilippineNationalPolice[PNP]toproducethepolicereportpertainingto the burning of the houses of the petitioners in the land in dispute andlikewise the investigation report if an investigation was conducted by thePNP.

TheseallegationsobviouslylackwhattheRuleonWritofHabeasDatarequiresas

aminimum,thusrenderingthepetitionfatallydeficient.Specifically,weseenoconcrete

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


allegationsofunjustifiedorunlawfulviolationoftherighttoprivacyrelatedtotherighttolife,libertyorsecurity.Thepetitionlikewisehasnotalleged,muchlessdemonstrated,anyneedforinformationunderthecontrolofpoliceauthoritiesotherthanthoseithasalreadyset forth as integral annexes.The necessity or justification for the issuance of thewrit,based on the insufficiency of previous effortsmade to secure information, has not alsobeenshown.Insum,theprayerfortheissuanceofawritofhabeasdataisnothingmorethanthefishingexpeditionthatthisCourtinthecourseofdraftingtheRuleonhabeasdatahadinmindindefiningwhatthepurposeofawritofhabeasdataisnot.Intheselights,theoutrightdenialofthepetitionfortheissuanceofthewritofhabeasdataisfullyinorder.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we herebyDISMISS the present petition

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

SOORDERED.

ARTUROD.BRIONAssociateJusticeWECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNOChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBINGAssociateJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIOAssociateJustice

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGOAssociateJustice

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZAssociateJustice

3/1/2015 G.R.No.182484


RENATOC.CORONA

AssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNAAssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIOAssociateJustice

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURAAssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES

AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGAAssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.AssociateJustice

RUBENT.REYESAssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROAssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant toSection13,ArticleVIIIof theConstitution, it isherebycertified thattheconclusionsintheaboveResolutionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.

REYNATOS.PUNOChiefJustice

*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

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,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtsinCivilCases.MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtsshallexercise:

[] (3)Exclusiveoriginal jurisdictioninallcivilactionswhichinvolvetitle to,orpossessionof,realproperty,orany

interestthereinwheretheassessedvalueofthedisputedpropertyorinterestthereindoesnotexceedTwentyThousandPesos(P20,000.00)or,incivilactionsinMetroManila,wheresuchassessedvaluedoesnotexceedFiftyThousandPesos(P50,000.00)exclusiveofinterest,damagesofwhateverkind,attorneysfees,litigationexpensesandcosts:Provided,Thatincasesoflandnotdeclaredfortaxationpurposes,thevalueofsuchpropertyshallbedeterminedbytheassessedvalueoftheadjacentlots.

[15]UnderSection4,Rules65oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.

[16] Rollo, pp. 2728A separate substitute compliance for the requiredStatement ofMaterialDates in petitions forcertiorariunderthesecondparagraphofSection3,Rule46,inrelationswithRules56and65oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.

[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.Institutionof SeparateActions.ThisRule shall not preclude the filingof separate criminal, civil oradministrativeactions.

[25]SEC.22.EffectofFilingofaCriminalAction.Whenacriminalactionhasbeencommenced,noseparatepetitionforthewritshallbefiled.Thereliefsunderthewritshallbeavailablebymotioninthecriminalcase.

TheprocedureunderthisRuleshallgovernthedispositionofthereliefsavailableunderthewritofamparo.[26]

SEC.23.Consolidation.Whenacriminalactionisfiledsubsequenttothefilingofapetitionforthewrit,thelattershallbeconsolidatedwiththecriminalaction.

Whenacriminalactionandaseparatecivilactionarefiledsubsequenttoapetitionforawritofamparo,thelattershallbeconsolidatedwiththecriminalaction.

Afterconsolidation,theprocedureunderthisRuleshallcontinuetoapplytothedispositionofthereliefsinthepetition.

masangkay v. del rosario

Documents