FACTS:

Private respondents, Sps. Sanson filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages with prayer for
issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against petitioners, Tapuz et. al. and other John
Does totaling to 120 persons before Aklan MCTC, alleging that they are the (1) registered owner of the
disputed land; and (2) prior possessors, when Tapuz et. al., armed with bolos and carrying suspected
firearms together with unidentified persons, entered the disputed land by force and intimidation without
their permission and build thereon a nipa and bamboo structure.

Petitioners, in their answer, denied the material allegations and essentially claimed that they are the (1)
actual and prior possessors of the disputed land; (2) on the contrary, the private respondents are the
intruders; and (3) private respondents’ certificate of title to the disputed land is spurious, asked for the
dismissal of the complaint and interposed a counterclaim for damages.

MCTC decided in private respondents’ favor, finding prior possession through the construction of
perimeter fence in 1993. On appeal, Judge Marin granted private respondents’ motion for issuance of writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction upon posting of a bond but the writ authorizing the immediate
implementation of the MCTC decision was actually issued by public respondent Judge Del Rosario after
private respondents had complied with the imposed condition. Petitioners moved for reconsideration,
while private respondents filed a motion for demolition. Public respondent judge denied petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration to defer enforcement of preliminary mandatory injunction. Meanwhile, petitioners
opposed the motion for demolition, but public respondent judge nevertheless, issued a special order – a
Writ of Demolition to be implemented within 15 days after the Sheriff’s notice to the petitioners to
voluntarily demolish their houses to allow private respondents to effectively take actual possession of the
land. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review of the Permanent Mandatory Injunction and the Order of
Demolition before the CA. Thereafter, Sheriff issued a Notice to Vacate and for Demolition; hence,
petitioners filed before SC a petition for Certiorari with prayer for Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data.

ISSUE:
Whether petition for Certiorari with Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data, is proper?

Held:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The Supreme Court held that the petition for certiorari and
issuance of a writ of habeas data are fatally defective, both in substance and in form, and the petition for
the issuance of the writ of amparo is fatally defective as to the content and substance.

As to the issuance of the Writ of Amparo, the Supreme Court held that the writ of amparo is intended to
address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent
remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these
Rules. 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. Consequently, the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo - in line with the extraordinary character of the writ and the reasonable certainty that its
issuance demands - requires that every petition for the issuance of the writ must be supported by
justifying allegations of fact, to wit, inter alia, “The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved
party violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and
how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting
affidavits”
In this case, what is involved is a property issues rooted from physical possession disputed by the parties.
No issues relating to life or liberty can hardly be discerned except to the extent that the occurrence of the
past violence has been alleged. Right to security, on the other hand, is alleged only to the extent of
threats and harassment implied from the presence of “armed men bare to the waist” and the alleged
pointing and firing of weapons, however, none of the supporting affidavits compellingly show that the
threat to the right to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is imminent or continuing.
As to the issuance of the Writ of Habeas Data, the Supreme Court held that there are no concrete
allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty or
security. The petition likewise has not alleged, much less demonstrated, any need for information under
the control of police authorities other than those it has already 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 been shown. In sum, the prayer for the issuance of a writ of habeas data
is nothing more than the "fishing expedition" that this Court - in the course of drafting the Rule on habeas
data - had in mind in defining what the purpose of a writ of habeas data is not.