This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-12-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Citing the cases of Pasong Bayabas Farmers Asso., Inc. and Junio, this Court arrived at significantly similar ruling in the case of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (ARBA) v. Nicolas.[36] | |||||
|
2013-09-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| There are considerable differences between an ordinary appeal and a petition for certiorari which have been exhaustively discussed by this Court in countless cases. The remedy for errors of judgment, whether based on the law or the facts of the case or on the wisdom or legal soundness of a decision, is an ordinary appeal.[21] In contrast, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action designed to correct errors of jurisdiction, defined to be those "in which the act complained of was issued by the court, officer, or quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of in excess of jurisdiction."[22] A court or tribunal can only be considered to have acted with grave abuse of discretion if its exercise of judgment was so whimsical and capricious as to be equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be extremely patent and gross that it would amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility."[23] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The petition filed in this case is one for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitions filed under this rule bring up for review errors of judgment. It is an ordinary appeal and the petition must only raise questions of law which must be distinctly set forth and discussed.[33] The present petition, however, assails the RTC order of execution dated December 21, 2009 and alias writ of execution dated May 17, 2010. It is a settled rule that orders granting execution are interlocutory orders;[34] hence, the petitioners should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This is categorically provided in Rule 41, viz: Section 1. Subject of appeal. - An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| While not determinative of the outcome of this dispute, the Court has, in Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (ARBA) v. Nicolas,[45] held that the principles enunciated in Natalia Realty, Inc. hold sway regardless of what non-agricultural use to which an agricultural land is converted. ARBA, in fine, declares that the Natalia Realty, Inc. ruling is not confined solely to agricultural lands located within the townsite reservations; it is also applicable to other agricultural lands converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL. The land classifying medium that ARBA teaches is not limited solely to a proclamation, but may also involve a city ordinance. | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| To be sure, the Court had on several occasions decreed that a local government unit has the power to classify and convert land from agricultural to non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL.[23] In Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas,[24] it reiterated that | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Relatedly, a reference to the Special Economic Zone Act of 1995[14] provides a parallel orientation on the issue. Under said Act, several towns and cities encompassing the whole Philippines were readily identified as economic zones.[15] To uphold Roxas & Co.'s reading of PP 1520 would see a total reclassification of practically all the agricultural lands in the country to non-agricultural use. Propitiously, the legislature had the foresight to include a bailout provision in Section 31 of said Act for land conversion.[16] The same cannot be said of PP 1520, despite the existence of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27 or the Tenant Emancipation Decree,[17] which is the precursor of the CARP. | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| I am not cowed by accusations that my position on the instant Petitions is contrary to social justice, because it is substantially favors Roxas & Co., the landowners. Article XIII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution recognize the right of the landowners, alongside the farmers and farmworkers, in the implementation of the CARP. It has been declared, furthermore, that the duty of the Court to protect the weak and the underprivileged should not be carried out to such an extent as to deny justice to the landowner whenever truth and justice happen to be on his side.[87] As this Court unhesitatingly declared in Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (ARBA) v. Nicolas[88]: This Court can not sit idly and allow a government instrumentality to trample on the rights of bona fide landowners in the blind race for what it proclaims as social justice. As Justice Isagani Cruz succinctly held, social justice is to be afforded to all: | |||||
|
2002-01-30 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| On December 29, 1985, respondent, assisted by his brother, petitioner Miguel Katipunan, entered into a Deed of Absolute Sale[4] with brothers Edgardo Balguma and Leopoldo Balguma, Jr. (co-petitioners), represented by their father Atty. Leopoldo Balguma, Sr., involving the subject property for a consideration of P187,000.00. Consequently, respondent's title to the property was cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. 168394[5] was registered and issued in the names of the Balguma brothers. In January, 1986, Atty. Balguma, then still alive, started collecting rentals from the lessees of the apartments. | |||||