This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-10-15 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 6657, lands were classified into agricultural, residential, or industrial by law or by zoning ordinances enacted by local government units. In Heirs of Luna v. Afable:[44] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we reiterate the settled rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[27] Questions of facts are not allowed in a Rule 45 petition because this Court is not a trier of facts.[28] The Court generally accords respect, if not finality, to the factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies, among them is the DARAB, as these bodies are deemed experts in their respective fields.[29] The question of the existence of a tenancy relationship intertwined with the question of reclassification requires for its resolution a review of the factual findings of the agricultural tribunals and of the CA. These are questions we cannot generally touch in a Rule 45 petition. | |||||
|
2013-09-04 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that the DARAB had jurisdiction, the CA was mistaken in upholding the PARAB's Decision that the land is industrial based on a zoning ordinance, without a prior finding on whether the ordinance had been approved by the HLURB. We ruled in Heirs of Luna v. Afable as follows:[40] | |||||