Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALEJANDRO DANAN v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 176549 2016-01-20	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. ROMEO C. CARRIEDO JARDELEZA, J.
In Danan v. Court of Appeals,[65] we explained the rationale for the grant of tine right of retention under agrarian reform laws such as RA No. 6657 and its predecessor PD No. 27, to wit:The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. A retained area, as its name denotes, is land which is not supposed to anymore leave the landowner's dominion, thus sparing the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless process. For as long as the area to be retained is compact or contiguous and does not exceed the retention ceiling of five (5) hectares, a landowner's choice of the area to be retained must prevail. xxx[66]
	GR No. 200454 2014-10-22	HOLY TRINITY REALTY v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ BERSAMIN, J.
The unquestioned non-compliance with the procedures set by Republic Act No. 6657 and its relevant rules and regulations further denied to the petitioner the exercise of its right of retention.[81] In doing so, the OIC-Regional Director disregarded this constitutionally guaranteed right. We cannot understate the value of the right of retention as the means to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice is not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner.[82]
	GR No. 184369 2013-10-23	HEIRS OF FLORENTINO QUILO v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES-DAGUPAN BRANCH SERENO, C.J.
Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not automatically convert the tiller into an agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws.[71] Despite this jurisprudential rule, the DARAB chose to uphold the finding of the RARAB that there was a tenancy relationship between Quilo and the spouses Oliveros. Hence, the CA committed no error in reversing the DARAB Decision.
	GR No. 152496 2009-07-30	SPS. GERMAN ANUNCIACION AND ANA FERMA ANUNCIACION AND GAVINO G. CONEJOS v. PERPETUA M. BOCANEGRA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
While it is a settled doctrine that findings of fact of the CA are binding and not to be disturbed, they are subject to certain exceptions for very compelling reasons, such as when: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (6) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; and (7) the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[17] The Court finds here cogent reason to take exception from the general rule.
	GR No. 181525 2009-03-04	P'CARLO A. CASTILLO v. MANUEL TOLENTINO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As we have stated earlier, while our agrarian reform laws significantly favor tenants, farmworkers and other beneficiaries, we cannot allow pernicious practices that result in the oppression of ordinary landowners as to deprive them of their land, especially when these practices are committed by the very beneficiaries of these laws. Social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner.[41]
	GR No. 169472 2009-01-20	FRANCISCO LANDICHO v. FELIX SIA PUNO, C.J.
The petitioners cannot rely on their self-serving statements to prove the existence of a tenancy relationship because independent and concrete evidence, aside from self-serving statements, is needed to prove personal cultivation, sharing of harvests, or consent of the landowner.[62] A tiller or a farmworker does not automatically become an agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws by mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land.[63]
	GR No. 177188 2008-12-04	EL GRECO SHIP MANNING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In administrative proceedings, such as those before the BOC, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.[25] The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[26]
	GR No. 153595 2007-11-23	CORNELIO DE JESUS v. MOLDEX REALTY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To begin with, the MARO Certification merely said that petitioners Cornelio de Jesus, Servillano Herrera, Jacinto Herrera, Florencio Linquico, Maria Baltazar, Leticia Española, Alberto Gojo-Cruz, Pablo Gener, Hilario Gener, Felipe Gener and Oscar Diaz were "non-registered/non-legitimate (but actual tillers)."[12] Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not automatically convert a tiller or farmworker into an agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws.[13] Moreover, the settled rule is that certifications issued by municipal agrarian reform officers are not binding on the courts. In a given locality, the certifications or findings of the secretary of agrarian reform (or of an authorized representative) concerning the presence or the absence of a tenancy relationship between the contending parties are merely preliminary or provisional; hence, such certifications do not bind the judiciary.[14]