Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOVENDO DEL CASTILLO v. ABUNDIO ORCIGA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 198770 2012-11-12	AURELIA GUA-AN v. GERTRUDES QUIRINO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On the other hand, the redemption made by petitioner Aurelia was ineffective and void since reversion of the landholding to the former owner is likewise proscribed under P.D. No. 27 in accordance with its policy of holding such lands under trust for the succeeding generations of farmers.[12]
	GR No. 177903 2012-08-22	ASUNCION v. EMILIANO DE GUZMAN RAYMUNDO MENDOZA, J.
The Court, however, deems it proper to delete the order requiring the MARO of Meycauayan, Bulacan and/or Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of the Province of Bulacan to generate the Emancipation Patent in favor of respondent as there is no proof that he already paid in full the amortizations due him to be entitled the issuance thereof. Land transfer under P.D. No. 27 is realized in two phases: (1) the issuance of a certificate of land transfer to a farmer-beneficiary as soon as the DAR transfers the landholding to him in recognition of his being deemed an owner; and (2) the issuance of an emancipation patent as proof of full ownership of the landholding upon full payment of the annual amortizations or lease rentals by the farmer-beneficiary.[29] Therefore, the Emancipation Patent may only be issued upon proof of full payment of the annual amortizations by the CLT holder.
	GR No. 169913 2011-06-08	HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES VELASCO JR., J.
Prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements, tenant-farmers have, at most, an inchoate right over the land they were tilling. In recognition of this, a CLT is issued to a tenant-farmer to serve as a "provisional title of ownership over the landholding while the lot owner is awaiting full payment of [just compensation] or for as long as the [tenant-farmer] is an `amortizing owner'."[54] This certificate "proves inchoate ownership of an agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn production. It is issued in order for the tenant-farmer to acquire the land"[55] he was tilling.
	GR No. 173923 2009-10-12	PEDRO MAGO v. JUANA Z. BARBIN CARPIO, J.
In the first place, the Emancipation Patents and the Transfer Certificates of Title should not have been issued to petitioners without full payment of the just compensation.[19] Under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 266,[20] the DAR will issue the Emancipation Patents only after the tenant-farmers have fully complied with the requirements for a grant of title under PD 27. Although PD 27 states that the tenant-farmers are already deemed owners of the land they till, it is understood that full payment of the just compensation has to be made first before title is transferred to them.[21] Thus, Section 6 of EO 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired under PD 27 may be transferred only after the agrarian reform beneficiary has fully paid the amortizations. In Coruña v. Cinamin,[22] the Court held: As discussed above, the laws mandate the full compensation for the lands acquired under Pres. Decree No. 27 prior to the issuance of emancipation patents. This is understandable particularly since the emancipation patent presupposes that the grantee thereof has already complied with all the requirements prescribed by Pres. Decree No. 27. x x x
	GR No. 162721 2009-07-13	PETRONILA MAYLEM v. CARMELITA ELLANO PERALTA, J.
Land transfer under P.D. No. 27 is effected in two stages: (1) the issuance of a certificate of land transfer to a farmer-beneficiary as soon as the DAR transfers the landholding to him in recognition of his being deemed an owner; and (2) the issuance of an emancipation patent as proof of full ownership of the landholding upon full payment of the annual amortizations or lease rentals by the farmer-beneficiary.[30] No principle in agrarian reform law is indeed more settled than that the issuance of an emancipation patent entitles the farmer-beneficiary to the vested right of absolute ownership of the landholding, and it constitutes conclusive authority for the issuance of an original or transfer certificate of title in his name. It presupposes that the grantee or beneficiary has, following the issuance of a certificate of land transfer, already complied with all the preconditions required under P.D. No. 27,[31] and that the landowner has been fully compensated for his property.[32] And upon the issuance of title, the grantee becomes the owner of the landholding and he thereby ceases to be a mere tenant or lessee.[33] His right of ownership, once vested, becomes fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or controversy.[34] Inescapably, Abad became the owner of the subject property upon the issuance of the emancipation patents and, as such, enjoys the right to possess the same--a right that is an attribute of absolute ownership.[35]
	GR No. 163876 2008-07-09	ROSALINA CLADO-REYES v. SPS. JULIUS AND LILY LIMPE QUISUMBING, J.
To prove their case, petitioners merely cited Section 4 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution and Section 2 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and stated that their title was founded upon those provisions. They hardly argued on the matter. Neither was there positive evidence (1) that their predecessor had legal title, i.e., a certificate of land transfer;[25] (2) that the lot was an agricultural lot and not a commercial one as contended by respondents; and (3) that they are qualified beneficiaries under the Agrarian Reform Law. Time and again we have held that a mere allegation is not evidence, and he who alleges has the burden of proving the allegation with the requisite quantum of evidence.[26]