This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-23 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, the determination of the land's classification as either an agricultural or industrial land and, in turn, whether or not the land falls under agrarian reform exemption must be preliminarily threshed out before the DAR, particularly, before the DAR Secretary. Verily, issues of exclusion or exemption partake the nature of Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) cases which are well within the competence and jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.[77] Towards this end, the latter is ordained to exercise his legal mandate of excluding or exempting a property from CARP coverage based on the factual circumstances of each case and in accordance with the law and applicable jurisprudence.[78] Thus, considering too his technical expertise on the matter, courts cannot simply brush aside his pronouncements regarding the status of the land in dispute, i.e., as to whether or not it falls under CARP coverage. As held in DAR v. Oroville Development Corp.:[79] | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Finally, we wish to reiterate the need to balance the interest between the petitioner bank (under receivership by the BSP), its creditors (85% of which or a total of P8, 771, 893, 000 is payable to BSP) and the general public on one hand, and the faithful implementation of agrarian reform program on the other hand, with the view to harmonizing them and ensuring that the objectives of the CAR are met and satisfied. [45] | |||||