This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to R.A. No. 6657 in relation with P.D. No. 27,[33] any sale or disposition of agricultural lands made after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 which has been found contrary to its provisions shall be null and void. The proper procedure for the reallocation of the disputed lot must be followed to ensure that there indeed exist grounds for the cancellation of the CLT or for forfeiture of rights under it, and that the lot is subsequently awarded to a qualified farmer-tenant pursuant to the law.[34] | |||||
|
2012-11-12 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It bears to stress that upon the promulgation of P.D. 27, farmer-tenants were deemed owners of the land they were tilling and given the rights to possess, cultivate and enjoy the landholding for themselves.[8] Thus, P.D. 27 specifically prohibited any transfer of such landholding except to the government or by hereditary succession. Section 27[9] of R.A. 6657 further allowed transfers to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and to other qualified beneficiaries. Consequently, any other transfer constitutes a violation of the above proscription and is null and void for being contrary to law.[10] Relevant on this point is Ministry of Agrarian Reform Memorandum Circular No. 7, series of 1979 which provides: "Despite the x x x prohibition, x x x many farmer-beneficiaries of P.D. 27 have transferred their ownership, rights and/or possession of their farms/homelots to other persons or have surrendered the same to their former landowners. All these transactions/surrenders are violative of P.D. 27 and therefore null and void." | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Sound indeed is the rule that where the law is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without any interpretation or even construction.[24] This is based on the presumption that the words employed therein correctly express its intent and preclude even the courts from giving it a different construction.[25] Section 6 of E.O. No. 80 is explicit in terms. It speaks for itself. It does not invite an interpretation that reads into its clear and plain language petitioner's adamant assertion that it divested the CSC of jurisdiction to finally dispose of respondent's pending appeal despite the privatization of PNB. | |||||