This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We agree with the CA that the mere issuance of the CLT does not vest full ownership on the holder[26] and does not automatically operate to divest the landowner of all of his rights over the landholding. The holder must first comply with certain mandatory requirements to effect a transfer of ownership. Under R.A. No. 6657[27] in relation with P.D. No. 27[28] and E.O. No. 228,[29] the title to the landholding shall be issued to the tenant-farmer only upon the satisfaction of the following requirements: (1) payment in full of the just compensation for the landholding, duly determined by final judgment of the proper court; (2) possession of the qualifications of a farmer-beneficiary under the law; (3) full-pledged membership of the farmer-beneficiary in a duly recognized farmers' cooperative; and (4) actual cultivation of the landholding. We explained in several cases that while a tenant with a CLT is deemed the owner of a landholding, the CLT does not vest full ownership on him.[30] The tenant-holder of a CLT merely possesses an inchoate right that is subject to compliance with certain legal preconditions for perfecting title and acquiring full ownership. For these reasons, we hold that Lorenzo's right and claim to ownership over the disputed lot were, at most, inchoate.[31] | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We find in favor of petitioners. Applying our pronouncement in Levardo v. Yatco,[51] we rule that the subject land cannot be subject to the OLT program of P.D. No. 27 for two reasons: first, the subject land is less than seven hectares; and second, respondents failed to show that Pastor owned other agricultural lands in excess of seven hectares or urban land from which he derived adequate income, as required by Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474.[52] | |||||
|
2010-01-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, in Levardo v. Yatco,[20] we upheld the waiver of tenancy rights and ruled that: Based on the evidence on record, respondents paid Aguido P2,000,000.00 and Hernando P2,417,142.00 as disturbance compensation. A reading of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay executed by petitioners show that they gave up their leasehold rights "dahil sa aming kagustuhang umiba ng hanap buhay ng higit ang pagkikitaan kaysa panakahan." The money given by respondents as disturbance compensation was indeed advantageous to the families of petitioners, as it would have allowed them to pursue other sources of livelihood. | |||||