Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GAVINO CORPUZ v. SPS. GERONIMO GROSPE AND HILARIA GROSPE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 192629 2015-11-25	FILINVEST LAND v. EDUARDO R. ADIA BRION, J.
The ruling in Torres was reiterated in Corpuz v. Grospe[9] and in Lapanday v. Estita.[10] In Lapanday, the Court stated that waivers of rights and interests over landholdings awarded by the government are invalid for violating agrarian reform laws. Thus, these waivers are void.
	GR No. 171961 2008-11-28	FERDINAND A. DELA CRUZ v. AMELIA G. QUIAZON NACHURA, J.
Nonetheless, we agree with petitioners that they have not abandoned the subject landholding, as in fact they have continuously cultivated the property. Abandonment requires (a) a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or property; and (b) an external act by which that intention is expressed or carried into effect. The intention to abandon implies a departure, with the avowed intent of never returning, resuming or claiming the right and the interest that have been abandoned.[33] The immigration of the original farmer-beneficiary to the U.S.A. did not necessarily result in the abandonment of the landholding, considering that one of his sons, petitioner Renato dela Cruz, continued cultivating the land. Personal cultivation, as required by law, includes cultivation of the land by the tenant (lessee) himself or with the aid of the immediate farm household, which refers to the members of the family of the tenant and other persons who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him in the [agricultural] activities.[34]
	GR No. 155640 2008-05-07	EUGENIA CASTELLANO and ERLAINE CASTELLANO v. SPS. FLORENTINO FRANCISCO and ESTELITA MATA FRANCISCO CARPIO, J.
right or property; and (2) an external act by which that intention is expressed or carried into effect. The intention to abandon implies a departure, with the avowed intent of never returning, resuming or claiming the right and the interest that have been abandoned.[10]
	GR NO. 149095 2007-07-24	SONNY B. MANUEL v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Inherent in the power of DAR to undertake land distribution for agrarian reform purposes is its authority to identify qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries.[24] Corollary to it is also the authority of DAR to select a substitute to a previously designated beneficiary who may have surrendered or abandoned his claim, and to reallocate the land awarded to the latter in favor of the former. For this purpose, DAR is governed by the requirements and procedure set forth in DAR Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 4,[25] series of 1983, in relation to Ministry of Agrarian Reform Circular No. 8-80, specifically: 1) that the waiver/surrender be made in favor of the government such as through the SN;[26] 2) that the SN recommend other qualified beneficiaries;[27] and 3) that, based on an investigation or hearing, an order or decision be rendered declaring the disqualification and removal of the abandoning/surrendering beneficiary.[28] Under paragraph V of MC No. 4, such selection/reallocation order issued by DAR becomes final and executory upon the lapse of 30 days from receipt thereof by the beneficiaries and/or parties-in-interest.
	GR No. 162890 2005-11-22	HEIRS OF JULIAN DELA CRUZ v. HEIRS OF ALBERTO CRUZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the present case, the DAR Secretary approved CLOA No. 51750 in the name of Alberto in the exercise of his administrative powers and in the implementation of the agrarian reform laws. The approval was based on the Report of the MARO, the November 16, 1990 Order of the PARO and the recommendation of the DAR Director of the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution, over whom the DAR Secretary has supervision and control. The DAR Secretary also had the authority to withdraw the CLOA upon a finding that the same is contrary to law and DAR orders, circulars and memoranda. The resolution of such issues by the DAR Secretary will entail the application and implementation of agrarian reform laws, inclusive of P.D. No. 946 as well as the implementing orders, circulars and rules and regulations issued by the DAR. On the issue of who may be or shall be declared as the owner-cultivator of the landholding, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian reform laws, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978 as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 14, Series of 1988, and DAR Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 1980 will apply. On the issue of whether or not the petitioners sold their tenancy rights over the landholding and barred them from asserting their rights, either by pari delicto, prescription or laches, the DAR Secretary will apply P.D. No. 27 and the rulings of this Court in Torres v. Ventura[34] and Corpus v. Grospe,[35] reiterated in Siacor v. Gigantana.[36] On the issue of whether the petitioners were denied of their right to substantive and procedural due process, the DAR Secretary will take into account, inter alia, Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1990.