Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERNESTO BUNYE v. LOURDES AQUINO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 155580 2015-07-01	ROMEO T. CALUZOR v. DEOGRACIAS LLANILLO BERSAMIN, J.
If tenanted land is converted pursuant to Section 36 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, the dispossessed tenant is entitled to the payment of disturbance compensation.[36] Reflecting this statutory right, the conversion order presented by Moldex included the condition for the payment of disturbance compensation to any farmer beneficiary thereby affected.
	GR No. 144244 2005-11-11	ESTER DELOSO v. SPS. ALFONSO MARAPAO AND HERMINIA P. MARAPAO TINGA, J.
On the main issue. The fundamental question raised by petitioner is whether the decision of the DARAB is supported by substantial evidence the requisite quantum of evidence in agrarian cases[12] and should, for that reason, have been upheld by the appellate court. Substantial evidence is, of course, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[13]
	GR NO. 147266 2005-09-30	LUDO v. VICENTE C. BARRETO AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case at bar, though there appears to be no court proceeding which took cognizance of the reclassification/application for conversion of the subject landholding from agricultural to residential/commercial, the permit issued by the DAR on 30 March 1978 was never assailed and thus, attained finality. In the case of Bunye v. Aquino,[32] the Court allowed the payment of disturbance compensation because there was an order of conversion issued by the DAR of the landholding from agricultural to residential. The decree was never questioned and thus became final. Consequently, the tenants were ejected from the land and were thus awarded disturbance compensation. From the preceding discussion, it stands to reason that deceased Vicente C. Barreto, who used to be a tenant of petitioner LUDO at the time of the conversion of the subject landholding, is entitled to disturbance compensation for his dispossession.
	GR No. 152085 2003-07-08	MARCIANA ALARCON v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, the case of Bunye v. Aquino,[15] does not apply in the instant case. We allowed the payment of disturbance compensation in the said case because there was an order of conversion issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform of the landholding from agricultural to residential. The decree was never questioned and thus became final. Consequently, the tenants were ejected from the land and were thus awarded disturbance compensation.