The Manila Times

Opinion

  Home  

  About Us  

  Contact Us 

  Subscribe     Advertise  
  Archives     Feedback  

  Register  

  Help  

  Top Stories

  Metro

  Business

  Regions

  Opinion

  World

  Life & Times

  Sports

  Tech Times

 
 
 

Saturday, July 12, 2008

 

ABOVE ALL THINGS
By Ramon Mabutas Jr.
Ungrateful tenant

 
Query: Ungrateful people do not deserve mercy—they should be exterminated from this vale of tears. This came to my mind after an individual and his family refused to vacate a small house within my lot after occupying the same without rental for almost forty years. Initially, the ungrateful individual and her family were allowed to occupy the edifice within my lot to compensate for the services of her husband, who took care of mechanical troubles of our car. However, said individual and her family have continued staying in our premises even after the death of her husband. Worse, no rental has ever been paid by her.

Upon the death of my wife, my children decided to have the edifice occupied by the ungrateful individual demolished in order to put up a bigger structure where they can stay. I sent a demand letter to said individual telling her to vacate our premises, but she remained adamant. Radical moves are being planned to eject her and family from our premises, but she threatened to institute a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo. By the way, what is this writ of amparo? Can it prevent me from ejecting the ungrateful individual and her family from my lot which is covered by a torrens certificate of title? Thanking you in advance for guiding me in my present problem. Angelo C.

Response

I pity you for your present predicament. That individual who, according to you, has been staying on your lot for forty years without paying any rent is really an ungrateful dog. She deserves no mercy. She can be held civilly, criminally and administratively liable. Your right to possess and to do anything relative to your property cannot be aborted. With respect to your query relative to a writ of amparo, the same cannot prevent you from ejecting individuals who have enjoyed your generosity by staying on your lot for forty years without paying any rent. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides that a 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.” Said writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. Your right to eject the ungrateful individual and family from your property is not included among the enumeration of rights stated in the afore-quoted rule.

As declared by the Supreme Court in a recent decision en banc in Armando Q. Canlas, Miguel D. Capistrano, Marrietta Pia vs. Napico Homeowners Ass’n. I-XIII Inc., et al. (G.R. No. 182795, prom: June 5, 2008), which was penned by Justice R.T. Reyes, the new remedy of writ of amparo is “intended for the protection of the highest possible rights of any person, which is his or her right to life, liberty and security.” It is hoped that this corner will refresh you in your current problem.

___

Above all things, let us reflect on the following statement of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ: “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter a kingdom of God. [Matthew, 19:23-24]”

   
 

The PSE-Manila Times Equity Challenge 2008

Phgifts

philflora.gif

Manila Times Friends

Sponsored Links
 

Back To Top

 
 
 


Powered by: 
The Manila Times Web Admin.

  

Home | About Us | Contact | Subscribe | Advertise | Feedback | Archives | Help

Copyright (c) 2001 The Manila Times | Terms of Service
The Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Hosted by: