This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-08-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| There being no agreement to sell or order of award yet issued over Lot 546, DAR officials declared them available for disposition to qualified beneficiaries. Since Arcadio Castro, Sr. was not an awardee or allocatee, this case clearly falls under the general rule of personal cultivation as requirement to qualify for award of lots under C.A. No. 539. As we held in Vitalista v. Perez[27]: In this case, the general rule requires personal cultivation in accordance with LTA Administrative Order No. 2 and DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1990. However, Land Authority Circular No. 1, Series of 1971 clearly makes three exceptions on the personal cultivation requirement in cases where land is acquired under C.A. No. 539: (1) when the awardee or promisee dies; or (2) when the awardee or promisee is physically incapacitated; or (3) when the land is fully paid for but the government fails to issue the corresponding deed of sale. By specifying these excepted cases and limiting them to three, the said circular recognizes that outside these exceptions, any deed of sale or agreement to sell involving lands acquired under C.A. No. 539 should be cancelled in cases where the awardee fails to comply with the requirement of personal cultivation. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A general law and a special law on the same subject should be accordingly read together and harmonized, if possible, with a view to giving effect to both. Where there are two acts, one of which is special and particular and the other general which, if standing alone, would include the same matter and thus conflict with the special act, the special must prevail, since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than that of the general statute and must be taken as intended to constitute an exception to the rule.[15] More so, when the validity of the law is not in question. | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| All these elements must be present to constitute a valid contract. Consent is essential to the existence of a contract; and where it is wanting, the contract is non-existent. In a contract of sale, its perfection is consummated at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing that is the object of the contract and upon the price. Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance of the thing and the cause, which are to constitute the contract. To enter into a valid contract of sale, the parties must have the capacity to do so. Every person is presumed to be capacitated to enter into a contract until satisfactory proof to the contrary is presented.[6] The burden of proof is on the individual asserting a lack of capacity to contract, and this burden has been characterized as requiring for its satisfaction clear and convincing evidence. | |||||