Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GRACIANO PADUNAN v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 177374 2014-07-02	MARIANO JOSE v. ERNESTO M. NOVIDA DEL CASTILLO, J.
C. The administrative corrections may include non-identification of spouse, corrections of civil status, corrections of technical descriptions and other matters related to agrarian reform.[37] The above pronouncement was reiterated in this ponente's ruling in Heirs of Lazaro Gallardo v. Soliman:[38] "the DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered EPs[;] the DAR Secretary, on the other hand, has exclusive jurisdiction over the issuance, recall or cancellation of [EPs] or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards that are not yet registered with the Register of Deeds."
	GR No. 176162 2012-10-09	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. CA MENDOZA, J.
By virtue of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1341,[18] PUP became a chartered state university, thereby making it a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter whose employees are part of the Civil Service and are subject to the provisions of E.O. No. 292.[19]
	GR No. 161796 2012-02-08	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ESTATE OF J. AMADO ARANETA VELASCO JR., J.
The DARAB has been created and designed to exercise the DAR's adjudicating functions.[46] And just like any quasi-judicial body, DARAB derives its jurisdiction from law, specifically RA 6657, which invested it with adjudicatory powers over agrarian reform disputes[47] and matters related to the implementation of CARL. We need not belabor that DARAB's jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Doronilla property, cannot be conferred by the main parties, let alone the intervening farmer-beneficiaries claiming to have "vested rights" under PD 27. As earlier discussed, the process of land reform covering the 1,266 hectares of the Araneta estate was not completed prior to the issuance of Proclamation 1637. So the intervenors, with the exception of the 79 tenant-beneficiaries who were granted CLTs, failed to acquire private rights of ownership under PD 27 before the effective conversion of the Doronilla property to non-agricultural uses. Hence, the Doronilla property, being outside of CARP coverage, is also beyond DARAB's jurisdiction.
	GR No. 178575 2010-06-29	JULIAN FERNANDEZ v. RUFINO D. FULGUERAS NACHURA, J.
Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or the law, and rules of procedure yield to substantive law. Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law.[13] Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies; rules of procedure cannot.[14]
	GR No. 171253 2009-04-16	LAKEVIEW GOLF v. LUZVIMIN SAMAHANG NAYON QUISUMBING, J.
From the foregoing, it is clear that prior to registration with the Register of Deeds, cases involving the issuance, recall or cancellation of CLOAs are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and that, corollarily, cases involving the issuance, correction or cancellation of CLOAs which have been registered with the Register of Deeds are within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. [30]
	GR NO. 137337 2005-12-09	JUAN PADIN v. HEIRS OF VIVENCIO OBIAS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Unfortunately, the issue of whether there was a tenancy relationship between the parties can no longer be raised by respondents before this Court since they did not interpose an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals. Moreover, this issue is factual and is binding upon this Court, the same being supported by substantial evidence.[6]
	GR No. 146480 2004-07-14	CONCEPCION TORALBA v. FRANCISCO MERCADO QUISUMBING, J.
Prefatorily, we note that the question whether the signatures on the waiver were forgeries is a factual issue that has been settled below. The CA affirmed the DARAB's findings that petitioner failed to prove the forgeries through clear and convincing evidence. The records reveal that during the proceeding before the DARAB, the petitioner was directed[20] and given ample opportunity to present the Notary Public. But instead, she only presented an affidavit executed by the Notary Public denying his signature on the instrument. Worse, the affidavit was presented long after the PAB ruled that Concepcion Toralba no longer had any rights over the subject landholding. Entrenched is the principle that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive on this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal, more so, if the said findings coincide with those of the DARAB, an administrative body with expertise on the matters within its specific and specialized jurisdiction.[21] Thus, we find no reason to disturb the findings on the issue of the forgery.