GR 182795; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182795 ; June 5, 2008
ARMANDO Q. CANLAS, MIGUEL D. CAPISTRANO, MARRIETA PIA, petitioners, vs. NAPICO HOMEOWNERS ASS’N., I XIII, INC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are settlers on a parcel of land in Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City. Their dwellings had been, or were about to be, demolished pursuant to a final court judgment. They filed a petition directly with the Supreme Court seeking the issuance of a Writ of Amparo. They alleged deprivation of liberty, freedom, and their right to shelter due to the respondents’ activities. The petition also raised allegations regarding fraudulent land titles held by the private respondents.
The petition explicitly acknowledged that the Supreme Court had already dismissed their previous cases (G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701, 177038) concerning the same property. Petitioners asserted that the present petition was not a motion for reconsideration of those final dismissals, but was solely for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo, which they argued could potentially affect the Court’s prior rulings.
ISSUE
Whether the Writ of Amparo is the proper remedy to prevent the demolition of petitioners’ dwellings based on a final and executory court judgment.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, under Section 1, is a remedy available only for violations or threats to the rights to life, liberty, and security, and specifically covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. The Court held that a threatened demolition of a dwelling, when carried out by virtue of a final and executory court judgment, does not constitute a violation of the right to life, liberty, or security as contemplated by the Amparo Rule. The petitioners’ claim to their dwellings, already adjudicated with finality, does not fall within the scope of rights protected by the writ.
Furthermore, the Court found no legal basis for the writ’s issuance as the petition failed to allege a clear factual and legal basis for the right sought to be protected, which appeared to have been fully settled in the previously dismissed cases. Under Section 6 of the Rule, the court must order the issuance of the writ only if the petition, on its face, merits it. Since the allegations did not constitute a proper case for amparo, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court emphasized that while it prioritizes genuine amparo petitions, it will not expend resources on matters outside the writ’s defined coverage.