Castillo vs.

Cruz
Gr No 182165

November 25, 2009

Facts
Respondent Cruz spouses leased a parcel of land situated at Barrio Guinhawa,
Malolos. They refused to vacate the property, despite demands by the lessor
Provincial Government of Bulacan which intended to utilize it for local projects.
The local government filed charges in the MTC, which in turn decided against the
spouses. RTC affirmed the decision. The spouses didnt vacate and continued to
file cases in the Malolos RTC. The court suspended the demolition against the
property, a determination of the property bounds, and a remanding of the case by
means of a writ of injunction. The respondents filed a MFR in the MTC. The court
ruled in their favor and issued another demolition order. In order to stop the
demolition, the spouses parked container vans around the property. Superintendent
Castillo was told by the mayor to enter the property for maintaining its possession.
Respondents refused. The y filed for a Petition for a writ of amparo and
habeas data in Malolos RTC. The same people claimed that the respondents
entered the property forcefully with heavy equipment and arrested them. RTC
ruled in their favor.
Issue
Is the writ of amparo and habeas data the correct remedy for the spouses
predicament?
Held
No. The petition was dismissed.
The Court is, under the Constitution, empowered to promulgate rules for the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.
As a response to extrajudicial killings, the court promulgated the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo on Oct. 24, 2007 and the Rule on Habeas Data on 2008. This power
was inherent in the Constitutional grant to the courts to promulgate rules for human
rights.
Definitions of the Writs:
a. Writ of Amparo- an available course of action 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

b. Writ of Habeas Data- a course that can be taken when the right to privacy
in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee or of a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information
regarding the person.
The limitation of the writs was in the protection of rights of life, liberty, and
security.
There was no threat to the said rights by the petitioners use of force. They were
only protecting property rights. Their affidavit said: Wala kaming nagawa
ipagtanggol ang aming karapatan sa lupa na 45 years naming IN POSSESSION.
Regarding habeas data, there was no allegation of the data collection requirement.
The writs cant be used to stall the execution of a property dispute decision. The
filing should have been barred after their arrest. This was due to the institution of
criminal proceedings running first. They may avail of the reliefs as a motion.