Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GABINO ALITA v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 154654 2007-09-14	JOSEPHINE A. TAGUINOD v. CA VELASCO, JR., J.
On January 1, 1995, the OP, through the Executive Secretary, rendered a Decision reversing the January 6, 1993 Order of the DAR Secretary and reinstating the latter's September 28, 1992 Order, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order, dated January 6, 1993, of the Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby SET ASIDE. The earlier order of that Department, dated September 28, 1992, is hereby CONFIRMED and REINSTATED with a modification that subject landholdings are not covered by the OLT program of the government pursuant to P.D. No. 27. [23] The OP primarily anchored its ruling on the fact that the subject lots were issued OCTs pursuant to homestead patents, specifically TCT No. T-90872 which was derived from OCT No. I-2423, and TCT No. T-65348 which was derived from OCT No. I-2965. Giving credence to petitioner Taguinod's contention that she and petitioner Aguila are the direct heirs of the original patentees or homesteaders of the subject lots, and pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act, the OP held that the subject lots are exempt from the coverage of PD 27, citing Alita v. Court of Appeals.[24]
	GR NO. 169372 2006-12-06	NARCISO GUIANG v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The RTC ruled that the lot was not covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 because it had been acquired under a homestead patent. The RTC cited the ruling of this Court in Alita v. Court of Appeals.[13] The court likewise cited the retention limits of original homestead owners or their direct compulsory heirs under Section 6, Article XIII of the Constitution, and Section 6 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657. According to the RTC, the Dulays, as tenants, were estopped from denying Guiang's title over the property.
	GR NO. 149765 2005-04-12	ARTURO MEJIA v. FILOMENA GABAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the meantime, the Court's decision in Alita v. Court of Appeals[4] was promulgated, wherein it was held that properties covered by homestead patents were not covered by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27.