Canlas vs. Napico Homeowners Ass'n., I-XIII, Inc.

A writ of amparo protects only the rights to life, liberty and security against extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof, and is unavailable to protect an alleged right to shelter or to revisit a final judgment ordering demolition or eviction.

Armando Q. Canlas, Miguel D. Capistrano and Marrieta Pia sued as settlers occupying a parcel of land in Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City, adverse to Napico Homeowners Ass'n., I – XIII, Inc. and others asserting title and a court judgment in their favor. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo had recently taken effect as a special remedy for violations or threats to life, liberty and security by a public official or employee or by a private individual or entity, covering extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

Petitioners were settlers on a certain parcel of land in Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City. Their dwellings had either already been demolished at the time of filing or were about to be demolished pursuant to a court judgment adverse to them.

According to petitioners, the demolition resulted from nefarious activities of private and public respondents that deprived them of liberty, freedom and rights to shelter under the Constitution. They asserted a desire to help unearth syndicates clothed with governmental functions acting in cahoots with squatting syndicates, and claimed that land officials had participated in issuing fraudulent and spurious titles now in the hands of private respondents, by which even courts had been misled into believing the titles were untainted by fraud.

Petitioners acknowledged awareness that no second or third motion for reconsideration could be filed, and stated that the petition should not be treated as such, but solely as a plea for a writ of amparo although it might affect the previous rulings in G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701 and 177038. They invoked the inherent power of the Supreme Court to modify, reverse and set aside even its own previous decisions on the basis of merits and evidence.

The record showed that the judgment under which demolition was carried out or threatened had been affirmed with finality in the four cited cases, leaving petitioners with no remaining right to the dwellings as against that final and executory determination.

• Deprivation of Liberty and Shelter: Petitioner argued that they were deprived of liberty, freedom and/or rights to shelter enshrined in the Constitution as a result of nefarious activities of private and public respondents, for which the writ of amparo was the only solution.
• Fraudulent Titles and Syndicates: Petitioner maintained that fraudulent and spurious titles were issued through participation of unscrupulous land officials in cahoots with squatting syndicates, undermining the Torrens system, and that said officials should be summoned to answer.
• Nature of Plea and Power to Revisit: Petitioner argued that the petition was solely for possible issuance of the writ of amparo and not a prohibited second or third motion for reconsideration, although it might affect the rulings in G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701 and 177038, invoking the inherent power of the Supreme Court to modify, reverse and set aside its own previous decisions on merits and evidence.

• Coverage of the Writ: Whether a threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment, premised on an alleged right to shelter, is covered by the writ of amparo for violation or threat to life, liberty and security.
• Sufficiency of Allegation: Whether a writ of amparo may issue where the petition alleges no clear factual and legal basis of the right to life, liberty and security sought to be protected.

• Coverage of the Writ: No. The threatened demolition under a final judgment affirmed with finality does not fall within Section 1, and a claim to a dwelling does not constitute a right to life, liberty and security.
• Sufficiency of Allegation: No. Absent a clear allegation of the factual and legal basis of a covered right, and where on its face issuance is unwarranted under Section 6, the writ will not issue and the petition is dismissed outright.

• Coverage of the Writ: The remedy under Section 1 is available only where the right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission, covering extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. Applied here, the threatened demolition was by virtue of a final judgment affirmed with finality in G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701 and 177038, not an extralegal killing or enforced disappearance. Even assuming a remaining claim to the dwelling despite the adverse final judgment, such shelter interest is not a right to life, liberty and security, leaving no legal basis for issuance.
• Sufficiency of Allegation: A writ requires a clear allegation of the supposed factual and legal basis of the right sought to be protected. Here, no such basis for the claimed interest in the land was alleged at all, the relevant rights having already been threshed out in the four prior cases. Under Section 6, issuance upon filing is ordered only if on its face the writ ought to issue, with a summary hearing set within seven days; where no legal basis appears on its face, dismissal outright is required to avoid expending judicial time on matters not covered, notwithstanding the priority accorded to genuine amparo petitions involving the highest rights.

• Scope of the Writ of Amparo — The writ is a remedy for violation or threatened violation of the rights to life, liberty and security by unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private individual or entity, covering extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. It was applied to exclude a property or shelter claim and a demolition carried out under final judicial authority.
• Facial Sufficiency for Issuance — Upon filing, the writ issues only if on its face it ought to issue, with summary hearing set not later than seven days from issuance; otherwise the petition is dismissed outright. It was applied to dismiss the petition where the face of the pleading showed no covered right and no clear factual and legal basis.
• Finality and Non-Circumvention by Amparo — An amparo petition cannot serve as a vehicle to reverse or evade a final and executory judgment. It was applied where petitioners conceded the petition might affect four prior final rulings but offered no covered constitutional right distinct from the already adjudicated land claim.

• "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." — States the threshold availability rule under Section 1 that delimited the entire analysis.
• "The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof." — Defines the coverage limitation that excluded the demolition and shelter claim.
• "The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of the court, which in this case was affirmed with finality by this Court in G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701, 177038, is not included among the enumeration of rights as stated in the above-quoted Section 1 for which the remedy of a writ of amparo is made available." — Articulates the ratio for dismissal as applied to the facts.
• "This new remedy of writ of amparo which is made available by this Court is intended for the protection of the highest possible rights of any person, which is his or her right to life, liberty and security." — Explains why priority is given to genuine amparo petitions while refusing to expend resources on uncovered matters.

• Section 1, Rule on the Writ of Amparo — Provides the petition as remedy for violation or threatened violation of the right to life, liberty and security, covering extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. It was applied to hold that demolition under final judgment and an alleged right to shelter fall outside the writ.
• Section 6, Rule on the Writ of Amparo — Requires immediate issuance only if on its face the writ ought to issue, with summary hearing not later than seven days from issuance. It was applied to justify outright dismissal where the petition showed no legal basis on its face.

Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-de-Castro, Brion, JJ., concur.