Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANECLANG v. IAC

This case has been cited 48 times or more.

	GR NO. 154064 2005-02-28	SPS. ERNESTO GUTIERREZ AND FELICISIMA B. GUTIERREZ v. PASCUAL B. CABRERA QUISUMBING, J.
On the second issue, referral to the DAR is no longer necessary. P.D. No. 316 and P.D. No. 1038 which required the referral of a land dispute case to the DAR for the preliminary determination of the existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship has indeed been repealed by Section 76[35] of Rep. Act No. 6657 in 1988.[36] Thus, the court may proceed to hear the case. However, it still has to ascertain that the case does not involve an agrarian dispute before taking cognizance thereof.[37]
	GR NO. 157809 2005-01-17	DELA CRUZ v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In its reply,[9] respondent HIGC averred that the property had been reclassified as residential even before Republic Act No. 6657 took effect on June 15, 1988; hence, outside the coverage of Rep. Act No. 6657.
	GR NO. 142359 and GR No. 142980 2004-05-25	PASONG BAYABAS FARMERS ASSOCIATION v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Under Section 3(c) of Rep. Act No. 6657, agricultural lands refer to lands devoted to agriculture as conferred in the said law and not classified as industrial land. Agricultural lands are only those lands which are arable or suitable lands that do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands.[72] Section 4(e) of the law provides that it covers all private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon. Rep. Act No. 6657 took effect only on June 15, 1988. But long before the law took effect, the property subject of the suit had already been reclassified and converted from agricultural to non-agricultural or residential land by the following administrative agencies: (a) the Bureau of Lands, when it approved the subdivision plan of the property consisting of 728 subdivision lots; (b) the National Planning Commission which approved the subdivision plan subdivided by the LDC/CAI for the development of the property into a low-cost housing project; (c) the Municipal Council of Carmona, Cavite, when it approved Kapasiyahang Blg. 30 on May 30, 1976; (d) Agrarian Reform Minister Conrado F. Estrella, on July 3, 1979, when he granted the application of the respondent for the development of the Hakone Housing Project with an area of 35.80 hectares upon the recommendation of the Agrarian Reform Team, Regional Director of Region IV, which found, after verification and investigation, that the property was not covered by P.D. No. 27, it being untenanted and not devoted to the production of palay/or corn and that the property was suitable for conversion to residential subdivision; (e) by the Ministry of Local Government and Community Development; (f) the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission which issued a location clearance, development permit, Certificate of Inspection and License to Sell to the LDC/private respondent; and, (g) the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board which also issued to the respondent CAI/LDC a license to sell the subdivision lots.
	GR No. 107764 2002-10-04	EDNA COLLADO v. CA CARPIO, J.
Natural Resources had assessed to be a watershed area is exempt from the coverage of RA No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law ("CARL" for brevity).[28] The Court defined watershed as "an area drained by a river and its tributaries and enclosed by a boundary or divide which separates it from adjacent watersheds." However, the Court also recognized that: "The definition does not exactly depict the complexities of a watershed. The most important product of a watershed is water which is one of the most important human necessit(ies). The protection of watershed ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations and the
	GR No. 140164 2002-09-06	DIONISIA L. REYES v. RICARDO L. REYES QUISUMBING, J.
The present dispute involves an agricultural leasehold. The governing law is R.A. No. 3844,[13] which, except for Section 35 thereof, was not specifically repealed by the passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (R.A. No. 6657), but was
	GR No. 138289 2001-07-31	GRACIANO PALELE v. CA MENDOZA, J.
Pursuant to this provision, the DARAB, after finding petitioner to have the necessary qualifications, issued to him CLOA Nos. 2361 and 2362, covering Lot Nos. 2679 and 2683, with areas of 3,071 and 1,044 square meters, respectively. However, as there were other occupants on Lot No. 2679, where petitioner's house was standing, CLOA No. 2361, which covered an area of 3,071 square meters, was cancelled by the DARAB and a new one was issued covering only 1,000 square meters, corresponding to the area awarded to petitioner as home lot in accordance with §24 of R.A. No. 3844. Memorandum Circular No. 1082 prescribes a maximum area of 1,000 square meters as home lots for agricultural tenants.[18]
	GR No. 106028 2001-05-09	LILIA Y. GONZALES v. CA GONZAGA-REYES, J.
xxx under the law, the Land Bank of the Philippines is charged with the initial responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under agrarian reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking. (Sec. 1, E. O. 405[17]) Through notice sent to the landowner pursuant to §16(a) of R.A. No. 6657[18], the DAR makes an offer. In case the landowner rejects the offer, a summary administrative proceeding is held and afterward, the provincial (PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the central (DARAB) adjudicator as the case maybe, depending on the value of the land, fixes the price to be paid for the land. If the landowner does not agree to the price fixed, he may bring the matter to the RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court. This in essence is the procedure for the determination of compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657.[19]