Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEDRITO SALMORIN v. DR. PEDRO ZALDIVAR

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 177903 2012-08-22	ASUNCION v. EMILIANO DE GUZMAN RAYMUNDO MENDOZA, J.
The Court is of the view that the Certificate of Non-Tenancy,[27] dated March 18, 1980, issued by Team Leader 1 Armando Canlas (Canlas) of Meycauayan, Bulacan attesting that the landholding "has no tenant-tiller as per records and investigation conducted by this Office and not covered by OLT under P.D. No. 27" is of no considerable value. In a given locality, the certification issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform or an authorized representative, like the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) or the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), concerning the presence or the absence of a tenancy relationship between the contending parties, is considered merely preliminary or provisional, hence, such certification does not bind the Judiciary.[28] The fact that a Certificate of Land Transfer was issued to respondent, proving that the land was covered by P.D. No. 27, diminishes the weight of the attestations made in the certification issued by Canlas.
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
On August 8, 1963, the Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA 3844) was enacted, [6] abolishing share tenancy and converting all instances of share tenancy into leasehold tenancy. [7] RA 3844 created the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to provide support in all phases of agrarian reform.
	GR No. 169589 2009-06-16	JOAQUIN SOLIMAN v. PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NACHURA, J.
The certifications attesting to petitioners' alleged status as de jure tenants are insufficient. In a given locality, the certification issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform or an authorized representative, like the MARO or the BARC, concerning the presence or the absence of a tenancy relationship between the contending parties, is considered merely preliminary or provisional, hence, such certification does not bind the judiciary.[51]