This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-10-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in finding them liable for violating DAR Administrative Order No. 02, series of 1994. Well-settled is the rule that only questions of law can be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.[16] The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal, provided they are based on substantial evidence.[17] More so in this case where the findings of the Court of Appeals coincide with those of the DARAB, an administrative body with expertise on matters within its specific and specialized jurisdiction.[18] | |||||
|
2009-03-19 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[29] Precisely, respondent filed the complaint against petitioner to question the regularity of the issuance to petitioner of the EP on which EP petitioner anchors his denial of the existence of a tenancy relationship. Ayo-Alburo v. Matobato[30] instructs:The mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. Emancipation patents may be cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. Section 12(g) of P.D. 946 (issued on June 17, 1976) vested the then Court of Agrarian Relations with jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of emancipation patents issued under P.D. 266. Exclusive jurisdiction over such cases was later lodged with the DARAB under Section 1 of Rule 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure.[31] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Jurisdiction over a case does not thus disappear the moment a certificate of title is issued, for the issuance of such certificate is not a mode of transfer of property but merely an evidence of such transfer.[32] | |||||
|
2008-09-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court has had the occasion to rule that the mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. Emancipation patents may be cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. Section 12(g) of P.D. No. 946 (issued on June 17, 1976) vested the then Court of Agrarian Relations with jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of emancipation patents issued under P.D. No. 266. Exclusive jurisdiction over such cases was later lodged with the DARAB under Section 1 of Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure.[30] | |||||