TAPUZ v DEL ROSARIO

GR No. 182484, 17 June 2008

Brion, J.:

FACTS
Sometime on or about 6:30AM of 19 Apr. 2006, petitioner Daniel Tapuz together with
more than 120 armed men, by force and intimidation, entered the premises owned by
private respondents Sps. Gregorio and Ma. Lourdes Sanson and built a nipa and
bamboo structure therein. This prompted the private respondents to file a complaint
for forcible entry. The MCTC rendered a decision in favor of the private respondents.

On appeal by the petitioners, the RTC granted the issuance of the writs of preliminary
mandatory injunction and demolition. Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for review
before the CA. They eventually ask the SC for, among others, the issuance of writ of
amparo and writ of habeas data.

ISSUE
Whether petition for the issuance of writ of amparo, among others, is proper.

HELD
No, the Court held that the petitions for the issuance of writ of habeas data is fatally
defective, both in substance and in form. The petition for the issuance of the writ of
amparo, on the other hand, is fatally defective with respect to content and substance.

The writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in
the number of killings and enforce disappearances, and to the perceived lack of
available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns. It is intended
to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security. What it is not,
is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ
issued on amorphous and uncertain grounds.

In the instant scenario, it is clear from the statements passed by petitioners that the case
ultimately involves property issues as the petition traces its roots to question of physical
possession of the property. If at all, issues relating to the right to life or to liberty can
hardly be discerned except to the extent that the occurrence of past violence has been
alleged. The right to security is alleged only to the extent of the threats and harassment
implied from the presence of “armed men” and the alleged pointing and firing of
weapons. None of the supporting affidavits compellingly show that the threat to the
rights to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is imminent or is continuing.