Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Private respondents filed a petition before the trial court for the determination of just
compensation for their agricultural lands, which were acquired by the government
pursuant to PD 27. The RTC ordered Land Bank and DAR to pay respondents' land for
P30 per square meters. Land Bank was not able to file its motion for reconsideration on
time because the motion filed by its counsel lacked a notice of hearing. Land Bank
argues that the failure of its counsel is due to intense work-pressure and constitutes
excusable negligence, so the trial court should have heard the relief in accordance with
Sec 1 of Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Land Bank also argues that
respondents failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they filed a petition for the
determination of just compensation directly with the trial court because they should
have first sought reconsideration of the DAR's valuation of their properties.
Issues:
Held:
Thus, the trial did not err in taking cognizance of the case as the determination of just
compensation is a function addressed to the courts of justice.
Alita v CA
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not lands acquired through homestead law are covered by CARP
Held:
Facts:
Private respondent Hacienda Maria Inc. requested that 527.8308 hectares of its
landholdings be placed under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. Receiving
compensation therefor, HMI allowed petitioners and other occupants to cultivate the
landholdings so that the same may be covered under Agrarian Reform Program. In
1982, a final survey over the entire area was conducted and approved. From 1984 to
1988, the corresponding TCTs and EPs covering the entire 527.8308 hectares were
issued to petitioners, among other persons. In December 1997, HMI filed with RARAD
petitions seeking the declaration of erroneous coverage under Presidential Decree No.
27 of 277.5008 hectares of its former landholdings. HMI claimed that said area was not
devoted to either rice or corn, that the area was untenanted, and that no compensation
was paid therefor. RARAD rendered a decision declaring as void the TCTs and EPs
awarded to petitioners because the land covered was not devoted to rice and corn, and
neither was there any established tenancy relations between HMI and petitioners.
Petitioners appealed to the DARAB which affirmed the RARAD Decision. On appeal to
the CA, the same was dismissed. Petitioners contended that the EPs became indefeasible
after the expiration of one year from their registration.
Issue:
Whether or not EPs have become indefeasible one year after their issuance
Held:
After complying with the procedure in Section 105 of Presidential Decree No.
1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree where the DAR is required
to issue the corresponding certificate of title after granting an EP to tenant-farmers who
have complied with Presidential Decree No. 27, the TCTs issued to petitioners pursuant
to their EPs acquire the same protection accorded to other TCTs. The certificate of title
becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date
of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent. Lands covered by such title
may no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed to
another person.