This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-07-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The CA further observed that although it appeared that notice of the report was given to Atty. Lepiten and Atty. Yray, lawyers of Gloria and Francisco Cuyos, respectively, the same cannot be taken as notice to the other heirs of Evaristo Cuyos; that a lawyer's authority to compromise cannot be simply presumed, since what was required was the special authority to compromise on behalf of his client; that a compromise agreement entered into by a person not duly authorized to do so by the principal is void and has no legal effect, citing Quiban v. Butalid;[19] that being a void compromise agreement, the assailed Order had no legal effect. | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| It is true that in past decisions of this Court, in particular Torres v. Ventura[33] (which was cited by the DARAB Appeal Board) and Quiban v. Butalid[34] (which was relied upon by the CA), we held that a tenant issued a CLT is deemed the owner of the land. This is because PD 27 states that "(t)he tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed estate or not, shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated and three (3) hectares if irrigated." | |||||