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 Summary (G.R. No. 212096)

MCTC Findings on Prior Possession

The MCTC found the Sansons in actual, open, exclusive possession since constructing a perimeter fence in 1993. It credited an amended commissioner’s report and supporting affidavits, inferring petitioners’ entry only on April 19, 2006 by force and intimidation. The court rejected petitioners’ earlier-entry claim as inconsistent with their own filings and witness affidavits.

RTC Injunction and Demolition Orders

On appeal to RTC Branch 6, Judge Marin granted a preliminary mandatory injunction favoring Sansons, conditioned on bond posting. After compliance, Judge del Rosario issued the writ on March 12, 2007. Denials of petitioners’ motions for reconsideration followed, and a writ of demolition was issued via Special Order, directing petitioners to vacate and demolish structures within 15 days of sheriff’s notice.

Petitioners’ Petition before the Supreme Court

Petitioners filed a consolidated petition for certiorari (Rule 65), writ of amparo, and writ of habeas data. They alleged jurisdictional defect in the MCTC (valued property over ₱20,000) and recounted incidents of armed intrusion, firing at minors, arson of two houses, and ongoing threats, invoking rights to life, liberty, security, and data.

Issues Raised: Jurisdiction and Remedies

Petitioners contended the MCTC and RTC lacked jurisdiction over a case involving title or possession exceeding ₱20,000 (Judiciary Reorg. Act, Sec. 33). They sought certiorari to nullify RTC orders, amparo protection against threats and violence, and habeas data to compel PNP reports on arson incidents.

Timeliness of the Certiorari Petition

The Court found the certiorari petition filed over eight months after the latest assailed RTC order, beyond the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65, Sec. 4. The subsequent Notice to Vacate (Apr. 18, 2008) was deemed an administrative enforcement medium, not a new order triggering the period.

Forum Shopping and Defects in the Petition

Petitioners simultaneously pursued review before the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. SP No. 02859) and the Supreme Court, misrepresenting the CA’s action in their petition. This dual action against identical interlocutory orders constituted willful and deliberate forum shopping, warranting summary dismissal. Verification and non-forum-shopping certification were defective, with one petitioner unsigned.

Jurisdiction of MCTC over Forcible Entry

The Court held the MCTC properly exercised exclusive jurisdiction over forcible entry cases (Judiciary Reorg. Act, Sec. 33, par. 3), which resolve pure physical possession disputes irrespective of property value. Actions involving title or right of possession plenary remedies (accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria) differ and were not invoked.

Writ of Amparo: Nature and Requirements

The writ of amparo, an extraordinary remedy under A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, protects rights to life, liberty, and security against threats or violations. A petition must allege personal circumstances, respondent’s identity, specific threat or violation circumstances, investigation details, recourses taken, and reliefs prayed for, supported by affidavits.

Evaluation of the Amparo Petition

Petitioners’ affidavits focused on property-related violence in the possession dispute, lacking convincing allegations of continuing or imminent threats to life, liberty, or security. Many affidavits were identical or unsworn; PNP certifications

...continue reading

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