Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MELCHOR SIMENE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 170182 2009-06-18	LEONARDO TARONA v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The private respondents moved for reconsideration of the foregoing decision. In its Resolution of August 6, 2004,[10] however, the DARAB denied their motion, prompting the private respondents to file a petition for review with motion for the issuance of a prohibitory injunction[11] with the Court of Appeals (CA).
	GR No. 170182 2009-06-18	LEONARDO TARONA v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In its judgment of reversal, the CA first ruled on the extent of the coverage of the CARP over the subject landholding, holding that only 1.2854 hectares out of the total area of 10.4758 hectares is carpable as per the order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Director in A.R. Case No. LSD 0157'03 "RE: Protest from CARP Coverage xxx," which was an action filed by the private respondents herein with the DAR involving the subject property. Anent the issue of the existence of tenancy relations, the CA noted that while the DARAB upheld the existence thereof between the private respondents Leaños and Apolonia, Carlos, Lourdes and Rogelio Tarona,[13] nowhere in said Board's decision is a similar conclusion with regard to Leonardo, Eugenia, Nita, Luis and Rosalinda Tarona.[14] Be that as it may, so the CA held, considering that the latter group of Taronas are the nephews and nieces and members of the immediate farm household of the original agricultural tenant, Juanito Tarona, they cannot succeed as tenants-in-law because under Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, or the Agricultural Land Reform Code, succession of tenancy rights is limited only to direct descendants. As for Apolonia, Carlos, Lourdes and Rogelio, the CA found that they cannot be considered as tenants of the subject land because they are not residents of the place where the same lies, as evidenced by the certification of the barangay captain of Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan and the certification of the election officer of Caloocan City that Apolonia, Carlos and Rogelio were residents and/or registered voters of Caloocan City.
	GR No. 170182 2009-06-18	LEONARDO TARONA v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In its judgment of reversal, the CA first ruled on the extent of the coverage of the CARP over the subject landholding, holding that only 1.2854 hectares out of the total area of 10.4758 hectares is carpable as per the order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Director in A.R. Case No. LSD 0157'03 "RE: Protest from CARP Coverage xxx," which was an action filed by the private respondents herein with the DAR involving the subject property. Anent the issue of the existence of tenancy relations, the CA noted that while the DARAB upheld the existence thereof between the private respondents Leaños and Apolonia, Carlos, Lourdes and Rogelio Tarona,[13] nowhere in said Board's decision is a similar conclusion with regard to Leonardo, Eugenia, Nita, Luis and Rosalinda Tarona.[14] Be that as it may, so the CA held, considering that the latter group of Taronas are the nephews and nieces and members of the immediate farm household of the original agricultural tenant, Juanito Tarona, they cannot succeed as tenants-in-law because under Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, or the Agricultural Land Reform Code, succession of tenancy rights is limited only to direct descendants. As for Apolonia, Carlos, Lourdes and Rogelio, the CA found that they cannot be considered as tenants of the subject land because they are not residents of the place where the same lies, as evidenced by the certification of the barangay captain of Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan and the certification of the election officer of Caloocan City that Apolonia, Carlos and Rogelio were residents and/or registered voters of Caloocan City.