This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-01-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The retroactive application of R.A. No. 6657 is not only statutory[34] but is also founded on equitable considerations. In Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[35] the Court declared that it would be highly inequitable on the part of the landowners therein to compute just compensation using the values at the time of taking in 1972, and not at the time of payment, considering that the government and the farmer-beneficiaries have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof has not yet been transferred in their names. The same equitable consideration is applicable to the factual milieu of the instant case. The records show that respondents' property had been placed under the agrarian reform program in 1972 and had already been distributed to the beneficiaries but respondents have yet to receive just compensation due them. | |||||
|
2004-10-19 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| On June 15, 1988, during the effectivity of the FMA between ARCI and SDPI, Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, took effect.[4] Section 8 thereof mandated that all lands of public domain leased, held or possessed by multinational corporations or association or private non-governmental corporations, devoted to agro-industrial enterprises shall be subjected to immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution upon the applicable lease, management, grower or service contracts in effects as of August 29, 1987 or otherwise upon its valid termination, whichever comes sooner but not later than after ten years following the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657. | |||||
|
2002-09-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| intended to have suppletory effect to the latter law.[14] Under R.A. 3844, two modes are provided for in the establishment of an agricultural leasehold relation: (1) by operation of law in accordance with Section 4 of the said act; or (2) by oral or written agreement, either express or implied.[15] By operation of law simply means the abolition of the agricultural share tenancy system and the conversion of share tenancy relations into leasehold relations. The other method is the agricultural leasehold contract, which may either be oral or in writing. In the instant case, it is not disputed that an agricultural leasehold contract was entered into between petitioner and Ramon Castro. Respondents, however, insist that an agricultural leasehold contract over a one-hectare portion of the landholding arose as a result of the actions of Ramon's overseer, who must be viewed as the latter's agent. They conclude that because of this implied leasehold, the application of the contract between petitioner and the landowner should be limited to the remaining portion of the property. Respondents' reasoning is flawed. While undoubtedly Duran was an agent of Ramon, he was not a general agent of the latter with respect to the landholding. The record shows that as overseer, Duran's duties and responsibilities were limited to "issu(ing) receipt(s), selling | |||||