EDGARDO A.

TIJING and BIENVENIDA R TIJING, petitioners,vs.

COURT OF APPEALS (Seventh Division) and ANGELITA DIAMANTE, respondents.

Petitioners are husband and wife. They have six children. The youngest is Edgardo Tijing, Jr., who
was born on April 27, 1989, at the clinic of midwife and registered nurse Lourdes Vasquez in Sta.
Ana, Manila. Petitioner Bienvenida served as the laundrywoman of private respondent Angelita
Diamante, then a resident of Tondo, Manila.

When Bienvenida returned from the market, Angelita and Edgardo, Jr., were gone. Bienvenida
forthwith proceeded to Angelita's house in Tondo, Manila, but did not find them there. Angelita's
maid told Bienvenida that her employer went out for a stroll and told Bienvenida to come back later.
She returned to Angelita's house after three days, only to discover that Angelita had moved to
another place. Bienvenida then complained to her barangay chairman and also to the police who
seemed unmoved by her pleas for assistance.

Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus with the trial court in order to recover
their son. The trial court concluded that since Angelita and her common-law husband could not have
children, the alleged birth of John Thomas Lopez is an impossibility. Accordingly, it ruled that
Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same person who is the natural child
of petitioners.

Judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the petition for Habeas Corpus, as such, respondent
Angelita Diamante is ordered to immediately release from her personal custody minor John Thomas
D. Lopez, and turn him over and/or surrender his person to petitioners, Spouses.

Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision rendered by the trial court and ordered the
return of custody to Angelita. The appellate court expressed its doubts on the propriety of
the habeas corpus.

Issue: Whether or not habeas corpus is the proper remedy

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court is constrained to rule that subject minor is indeed the son of
petitioners. The writ of habeas corpus is proper to regain custody of said child.

The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any
person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto. Thus, it is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of
a minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a third person of his own free will.

It may even be said that in custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary
restraint of liberty is not the underlying rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy. Rather, it
is prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody over a child. It must be stressed too
that in habeas corpus proceedings, the question of identity is relevant and material, subject to the
usual presumptions including those as to identity of the person.

In this case, the minor's identity is crucial in determining the propriety of the writ sought. If there is
doubt on the identity of the minor in whose behalf the application for the writ is made, petitioners
cannot invoke with certainty their right of custody over the said minor.

The Supreme Court held found that the evidence presented by Bienvenida is sufficient to establish
that John Thomas Lopez is actually her missing son, Edgardo Tijing, Jr.

First, there is evidence that Angelita could no longer bear children because she was ligated after the
birth of her second child. Second, there is strong evidence which directly proves that Tomas Lopez
is no longer capable of siring a son because he was sterile due to accident. Third, we find unusual
the fact that the birth certificate of John Thomas Lopez was filed by Tomas Lopez instead of the
midwife and on August 4, 1989, four months after the alleged birth of the child. The certificate must
be filed with the local civil registrar within thirty days after the birth. Fourth, the trial court observed
several times that when the child and Bienvenida were both in court, the two had strong similarities
in their faces, eyes, eyebrows and head shapes. Resemblance between a minor and his alleged
parent is competent and material evidence to establish parentage. Fifth, Lourdes Vasquez testified
that she assisted in Bienvenida's giving birth to Edgardo Tijing, Jr., at her clinic.

P/SUPT. FELIXBERTO CASTILLO, POLICE OFFICERS ROMEO BAGTAS et al vs

Cruz

Facts: The Province thus filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the Spouses
Cruz before the then Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bulacan, Bulacan.

the MTC rendered judgment against the Spouses Cruz, which judgment, following its
affirmance by the RTC, became final and executory.

Respondents averred that despite the Permanent Injunction, petitioners unlawfully

entered the property with the use of heavy equipment, tore down the barbed wire
fences and tents,6 and arrested them when they resisted petitioners' entry; and that as
early as in the evening of February 20, 2008, members of the Philippine National Police
had already camped in front of the property.

The Spouses Cruz sought in the case for injunction the issuance of a permanent writ of
injunction to prevent the execution of the final and executory judgment against them.

The MTC, by Order of January 2, 2008, approved the Report and ruled that the
permanent injunction which the RTC issued is ineffective. On motion of the Province,
the MTC, by Order of January 21, 2008, thus issued a Second Alias Writ of Demolition.

The Spouses Cruz, along with their sons-respondents Nixon and Ferdinand, thereupon
entered the property, placed several container vans and purportedly represented
themselves as owners of the property which was for lease.

On February 21, 2008, petitioners Police Superintendent Felixberto Castillo et al., who
were deployed by the City Mayor in compliance with a memorandum issued by
Governor Joselito R. Mendoza instructing him to "protect, secure and maintain
the possession of the property," entered the property.

Amanda and her co-respondents refused to turn over the property, however. Insisting
that the RTC July 19, 2005 Order of Permanent Injunction enjoined the Province from
repossessing it, they shoved petitioners, forcing the latter to arrest them and cause
their indictment for direct assault, trespassing and other forms of light threats.

Respondents later filed on March 3, 2008 a "Respectful Motion-Petition for Writ of

Amparo and Habeas Data," docketed as Special Civil Action No. 53-M-2008, which
was coincidentally raffled to Branch 10 of the RTC Malolos.

Respondents averred that despite the Permanent Injunction, petitioners unlawfully

entered the property with the use of heavy equipment, tore down the barbed wire
fences and tents,6 and arrested them when they resisted petitioners' entry; and that as
early as in the evening of February 20, 2008, members of the Philippine National Police
had already camped in front of the property.

RTC rendered judgement ordering the release of the respondents. Hence, the present
Petition for Review on Certiorari, pursuant to Section 1910 of The Rule on the Writ of
Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC),11 which is essentially reproduced in the Rule on the
Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)

Issue: whether or not writ of amparo is proper remedy

Held: No.

It bears emphasis that respondents' petition did not show any actual violation,
imminent or continuing threat to their life, liberty and security. Bare allegations that
petitioners "in unison, conspiracy and in contempt of court, there and then willfully,
forcibly and feloniously with the use of force and intimidation entered and forcibly,
physically manhandled the petitioners (respondents) and arrested the herein petitioners
(respondents)"19 will not suffice to prove entitlement to the remedy of the writ of
amparo. No undue confinement or detention was present. In fact, respondents were
even able to post bail for the offenses a day after their arrest. 20

Although respondents' release from confinement does not necessarily hinder

supplication for the writ of amparo, absent any evidence or even an allegation in the
petition that there is undue and continuing restraint on their liberty, and/or that there
exists threat or intimidation that destroys the efficacy of their right to be secure in their
persons, the issuance of the writ cannot be justified.

That respondents are merely seeking the protection of their property rights is gathered
from their Joint Affidavit

Oddly, respondents also seek the issuance of a writ of habeas data when it is not even
alleged that petitioners are gathering, collecting or storing data or information
regarding their person, family, home and correspondence.

As for respondents' assertion of past incidents 21 wherein the Province allegedly violated
the Permanent Injunction order, these incidents were already raised in the injunction
proceedings on account of which respondents filed a case for criminal contempt against
petitioners.22

Before the filing of the petition for writs of amparo and habeas data, or on February 22,
2008, petitioners even instituted a petition for habeas corpus which was considered
moot and academic by Branch 14 of the Malolos RTC and was accordingly denied by
Order of April 8, 2008.

It thus appears that respondents are not without recourse and have in fact taken full
advantage of the legal system with the filing of civil, criminal and administrative
charges.23  ςηαñrοblεš  Î½Î¹r†υαl  lαω  lιbrαrÿ
It need not be underlined that respondents' petitions for writs of amparo and habeas
data are extraordinary remedies which cannot be used as tools to stall the execution of
a final and executory decision in a property dispute.

At all events, respondents' filing of the petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data
should have been barred, for criminal proceedings against them had commenced after
they were arrested in flagrante delicto and proceeded against in accordance with
Section 6, Rule 11224 of the Rules of Court. Validity of the arrest or the proceedings
conducted thereafter is a defense that may be set up by respondents during trial and
not before a petition for writs of amparo and habeas data. The reliefs afforded by the
writs may, however, be made available to the aggrieved party by motion in the criminal
proceedings.25

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides:

Section 1. Petition . - The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any
person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) cralawlibrary

Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data provides:

Section 1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person
whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private individual or
entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied) cralawlibrary

From the above-quoted provisions, the coverage of the writs is limited to the protection
of rights to life, liberty and security. And the writs cover not only actual but also
threats of unlawful acts or omissions.

 Notably, none of the supporting affidavits compellingly show that the threat
to the rights to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is imminent or
continuing.1