Castillo v Cruz (2009)

Castillo v Cruz (2009)

G.R. No 182165

Facts:

        Respondent Cruz spouses leased a parcel of land situated at Barrio Guinhawa, Malolos. They refused to vacate the property, despite demands by the lessor Provincial Government of Bulacan which intended to utilize it for local projects.

       

        The local government filed charges in the MTC, which in turn decided against the spouses.

RTC affirmed the decision.

        The spouses didn’t vacate and continued to file cases in the Malolos RTC.

       

        The court suspended the demolition against the property, a determination of the property bounds, and a remanding of the case by means of a writ of injunction.

        The respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the MTC. The court ruled in their favor and issued another demolition order.

In order to stop the demolition, the spouses parked container vans around the property.

        Superintendent Castillo was told by the mayor to enter the property for maintaining its possession.

Respondents refused. They filed for a Petition for a writ of amparo and habeas data in Malolos RTC.

The same people claimed that the respondents entered the property forcefully with heavy equipment and arrested them. RTC ruled in their favor.

Issue:  Is the writ of amparo and habeas data the correct remedy for the spouses predicament?

Held:

No. Petition dismissed. The Court is, under the Constitution, empowered to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.

As a response to extrajudicial killings, the court promulgated the Rule on the Writ of Amparo on Oct. 24, 2007 and the Rule on Habeas Data on 2008. This power was inherent in the Constitutional grant to the courts to promulgate rules for human rights.

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.

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.

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.

Secretary of National Defense v Manalo teaches: As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof. Extralegal killings are killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. On the other hand, enforced disappearances are attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of law.

There must be a violation of these rights by means of an unlawful act. There must be a connection between the acts and effects of the aforementioned rights.

The Court Cited the case of Tapuz v Del Rosario- “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.”

The same case states that the writ shall issue if the Court is preliminarily satisfied with the prima facie existence of the ultimate facts determinable from the supporting affidavits that detail the circumstances of how and to what extent a threat to or violation of the rights to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party was or is being committed.

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.”

There was no threat to the said rights by the petitioners’ use of force. They were only protecting property rights. Theiraffidavit said: “Wala kamingnagawa  ipagtanggolangamingkarapatansalupana 45 years naming IN POSSESSION.”

Regarding habeas data, there was no allegation of the data collection requirement.

The writs cannot be used to stall the execution of a property dispute decision.

The filing should have been barred after their arrest. This was due to the institution of criminal proceedings running first. They may avail of the reliefs as a motion.

The challenged March 4, 2008 Order of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos is DECLARED NULL AND VOID, and its March 28, 2008 Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Special Civil Action No. 53-M-2008 is DISMISSED.