Title
Tapuz vs. Del Rosario
Case
G.R. No. 182484
Decision Date
Jun 17, 2008
Dispute over land possession in Boracay; petitioners denied private respondents' claims, alleging prior possession and spurious title. Courts upheld private respondents' prior possession, dismissed petitioners' appeals for untimeliness, forum shopping, and insufficient grounds for extraordinary writs.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 182484)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Underlying dispute and parties
    • Petitioners Daniel Masangkay Tapuz, Aurora Tapuz-Madriaga, Liberty M. Asuncion, Ladylyn Bamos Madriaga, Everly Tapuz Madriaga, Excel Tapuz, Ivan Tapuz and Marian Timbas claimed prior possession of a 1.0093-ha parcel at Sitio Pinaungon, Balabag, Boracay, Malay, Aklan.
    • Private respondents Spouses Gregorio and Ma. Lourdes Sanson, registered owners under TCT No. 35813, alleged forcible entry by the petitioners and about 120 unidentified armed men on April 19, 2006, and filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages with the Fifth Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC).
  • MCTC proceedings and decision
    • In their April 2006 Answer and counterclaim, petitioners denied wrongdoing and asserted the Sansons’ title was spurious.
    • On January 2, 2007 the MCTC (Judge Barrios) ruled for the Sansons, finding from the Commissioner’s Report that the Sansons had actual possession since 1993 (via perimeter fence) and were ousted by force in April 2006.
  • RTC and Court of Appeals actions
    • On appeal to RTC Branch 6, Judge Marin granted the Sansons a preliminary mandatory injunction; Judge del Rosario later issued the writ (March 12, 2007), denied reconsideration (May 17, 2007) and ordered demolition. Sheriff’s notice to vacate and demolish issued March 19, 2008.
    • Petitioners filed a Rule 42 petition for review with CA Cebu (CA-G.R. SP No. 02859) on August 2, 2007; motions remained unresolved as of April 2008.
  • Petition before the Supreme Court
    • On April 29, 2008 petitioners filed with the Supreme Court: certiorari under Rule 65, writ of amparo, and writ of habeas data.
    • They alleged armed intrusion, shotgun threats, arson of two houses, ongoing threats to life and security and sought PNP reports.

Issues:

  • Was the certiorari petition timely filed and free of forum shopping?
  • Did the MCTC (and on appeal, the RTC) properly exercise jurisdiction over the forcible entry action?
  • Is there a prima facie basis for issuing the writ of amparo to protect the petitioners’ rights to life, liberty or security?
  • Is there a sufficient showing to justify the issuance of a writ of habeas data for police reports?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.