This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The reliance of Roxas & Co. on Bacaling v. Muya[84] in support of its assertion that farmer-beneficiaries cannot claim disturbance compensation for lots that are not and have never been available for agrarian reform, is unavailing. In Bacaling v. Muya, there is an express finding by the Court that there was no valid agricultural leasehold relationship.[85] Respondents therein are not agricultural tenants, and are not entitled to the benefits accorded by agrarian law, among which, was disturbance compensation. | |||||