Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
*EN BANC.
769
770
771
BRION, J.:
_______________
1A.M. No. 07912SC.
2A.M. No. 08116SC.
3Rollo, pp. 7176.
773
The key that could unravel the answer to this question lies in
the Amended Commissioners Report and Sketch found on pages
245 to 248 of the records and the evidence the parties have
submitted. It is shown in the Amended Commissioners Report
and Sketch that the land in question is enclosed by a concrete and
cyclone wire perimeter fence in pink and green highlighter as
shown in the Sketch Plan (p. 248). Said perimeter fence was
constructed by the plaintiffs 14 years ago. The foregoing findings
of the Commissioner in his report and sketch collaborated the
claim of the plaintiffs that after they acquired the land in
question on May 27, 1993 through a Deed of Sale (Annex A,
Affidavit of Gregorio Sanson, p. 276, rec.), they caused the
construction of the perimeter fence sometime in 1993 (Affidavit of
Gregorio Sanson, pp. 271275, rec.).
From the foregoing established facts, it could be safely inferred
that the plaintiffs were in actual physical possession of the whole
lot in question since 1993 when it was interrupted by the
defendants (sic) when on January 4, 2005 claiming to (sic) the
Heirs of Antonio Tapuz entered a portion of the land in question
with view of inhabiting the same and building structures therein
prompting plaintiff
_______________
4Id., pp. 87102.
5Penned by Judge Raul C. Barrios, id., pp. 108115.
774
775
_______________
776
7 Id., p. 191.
8 Id., p. 44.
9 Id., pp. 6670.
10Id., p. 79.
11Id., pp. 117150 dated and filed 2 August 2007.
12Id., p. 116.
777
778
_______________
779
OUR RULING
We find the petitions for certiorari and issuance of
a writ of habeas data fatally defective, both in
substance and in form. The petition for the issuance
of the writ of amparo, on the other hand, is fatally
defective with respect to content and substance.
The Petition for Certiorari
We conclude, based on the outlined material antecedents
that led to the petition, that the petition for certiorari to
nullify the assailed RTC orders has been filed out of time.
It is not lost on us that the petitioners have a pending
petition with the Court of Appeals (the CA petition) for
the review of the same RTC orders now assailed in the
present petition, although the petitioners never disclosed in
the body of the present petition the exact status of their
pending CA petition. The CA petition, however, was filed
with the Court of Appeals on 2 August 2007, which
indicates to us that the assailed orders (or at the very least,
the latest of the interrelated assailed orders) were received
on 1 August 2007 at the latest. The present petition, on
the other hand, was filed on April 29, 2008 or more than
eight months from the time the CA petition was filed.
Thus, the present petition is separated in point of time
from the assumed receipt of the assailed RTC orders by at
least eight (8) months, i.e., beyond the reglementary period
of sixty (60) days15 from receipt of the assailed order or
orders or from notice of the denial of a seasonably filed
motion for reconsideration.
We note in this regard that the petitioners counsel
stated in his attached Certificate of Compliance with
Circular #188 of the Supreme Court16 (Certificate of
Compliance) that in
_______________
780
_______________
the second paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46, in relations with Rules 56 and
65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
17Id., p. 24.
781
xxx
(e) the petitioners went up to the Court of Appeals to question
the WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION copy of the petition
is attached (sic)
(f) the CA initially issued a resolution denying the
PETITION because it held that the ORDER TO VACATE
AND FOR DEMOLITION OF THE HOMES OF
PETITIONERS is not capable of being the subject of a
PETITION FOR RELIEF, copy of the resolution of the CA is
attached hereto (italics supplied)
(g) Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on August 7,
2007 but up to this date the same had not been resolved copy of
the MR is attached (sic).
xxx
_______________
_______________
20Spouses Julita dela Cruz v. Pedro Joaquin, G.R. No. 162788, July
28, 2005, 464 SCRA 576.
783
VOL. 554, JUNE 17, 2008 783
Tapuz vs. Del Rosario
_______________
21Reyes v. Sta. Maria, No. L33213, June 29, 1979, 91 SCRA 164.
784
785
_______________
786
_______________
789
790
Petition dismissed.
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.