Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROLANDO SIGRE v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 200454 2014-10-22	HOLY TRINITY REALTY v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ BERSAMIN, J.
In Sigre v. Court of Appeals,[47] the Court also stated: [T]he Court need not belabor the fact that R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law operates distinctly from P.D. 27. R.A. 6657 covers all public and private agricultural land including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture as provided for in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229; while, P.D. 27 covers rice and corn lands. On this score, E.O. 229, which provides for the mechanism of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, specifically states: "(P)residential Decree No. 27, as amended, shall continue to operate with respect to rice and corn lands, covered thereunder. x x x" It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that R.A. 6657 did not repeal or supersede, in any way, P.D. 27. And whatever provisions of P.D. 27 that are not inconsistent with R.A. 6657 shall be suppletory to the latter, and all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. 27 are retained even with the passage of R.A. 6657.[48]
	GR No. 164961 2014-06-30	HECTOR L. UY v. VIRGINIA G. FULE BERSAMIN, J.
In view of the result thus reached by us, it becomes superfluous to settle the issue of which between P.D. No. 27 and Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 should control, and whether or not the R.A. No. 6657 has repealed P.D. No. 27. Even so, the Court has expressly clarified that R.A. No. 6657 did not repeal or supersede P.D. No. 27, stating in Sigre v. Court of Appeals:[49]
	GR NO. 163980 2006-08-03	HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. SECRETARY MICHAEL DEFENSOR TINGA, J.
[28] Sigre v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 711, 719 (2002).
	GR NO. 149621 2006-05-05	HEIRS OF FRANCISCO R. TANTOCO v. CA AZCUNA, J.
The determination of just compensation under Section 16(d)[39] of R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law, is not final or conclusive -- unless both the landowner and the tenant-farmer accept the valuation of the property by the DAR, and the parties may bring the dispute to court in order to determine the appropriate amount of compensation, a task unmistakably within the prerogative of the court.[40]