SpecPro Canlas vs Napico Home Owners Assn
Canlas vs. Napico Home Owner’s Association
G.R. No. 182795
Facts:
The petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of Amparo alleging that they have been deprived of their liberty, freedom and/or rights to shelter enshrined and embodied in our Constitution, as the result of the nefarious activities of both the Private and Public Respondents. Petitioners are settlers in a certain parcel of land situated in the Brgy. Manggahan, Pasig City. Their dwellings have either been demolished as of the time of filing of the petition, or is about to be demolished pursuant to a court judgment which was affirmed with finality in four other cases.
Petitioners claim that respondents hold fraudulent and spurious titles. Thus, the petition for writ of Amparo.
The rule on writ of amparo provides that it 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 extra legal killings or disappearances.
Further, the court also noted that the factual and legal basis for petitioners’ claim to the land in question is not alleged in the petition at all. The Court can only surmise that these rights and interest had already been threshed out and settled in the other cases decided in connection with the petition.
Issue:
Whether or Not the writ of Amparo is a correct remedy for the petitioners.
Ruling:
No. The writ of amparo does not cover the cause of the petitioners. The threatened demolition of a dwelling by a virtue of a final judgment of the court is not included among thee numeration of rights covered by the writ. Hence, the court finding no legal basis for the issuance of the writ dismissed petition outright. It rationed that new remedy of writ of amparo which is made available by this Court is intended for the protection of the highest possible rights of any person, which is his or her right to
G.R. No. 182795
Facts:
The petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of Amparo alleging that they have been deprived of their liberty, freedom and/or rights to shelter enshrined and embodied in our Constitution, as the result of the nefarious activities of both the Private and Public Respondents. Petitioners are settlers in a certain parcel of land situated in the Brgy. Manggahan, Pasig City. Their dwellings have either been demolished as of the time of filing of the petition, or is about to be demolished pursuant to a court judgment which was affirmed with finality in four other cases.
Petitioners claim that respondents hold fraudulent and spurious titles. Thus, the petition for writ of Amparo.
The rule on writ of amparo provides that it 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 extra legal killings or disappearances.
Further, the court also noted that the factual and legal basis for petitioners’ claim to the land in question is not alleged in the petition at all. The Court can only surmise that these rights and interest had already been threshed out and settled in the other cases decided in connection with the petition.
Issue:
Whether or Not the writ of Amparo is a correct remedy for the petitioners.
Ruling:
No. The writ of amparo does not cover the cause of the petitioners. The threatened demolition of a dwelling by a virtue of a final judgment of the court is not included among thee numeration of rights covered by the writ. Hence, the court finding no legal basis for the issuance of the writ dismissed petition outright. It rationed that new remedy of writ of amparo which is made available by this Court is intended for the protection of the highest possible rights of any person, which is his or her right to