Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROXAS v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 200454 2014-10-22	HOLY TRINITY REALTY v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ BERSAMIN, J.
The Court cannot consider and declare the proceedings conducted by the OIC-Regional Director as a substantial compliance with the notice requirements. Compliance with such requirements, being necessary to render the implementation of the CARP valid, was mandatory. As the Court observed in Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals:[76]
	GR No. 179685 2013-06-19	CONRADA O. ALMAGRO v. SPS. MANUEL AMAYA VELASCO JR., J.
This is not to minimize the importance of the notice of coverage and other processes preparatory to bringing an area within land reform coverage or the compulsory acquisition of private land. Non-compliance with these processes would, applying by analogy the pronouncement in Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals (Roxas),[36] be an infringement of the requirements of administrative due process. In Roxas, a case involving non-observance of procedural requirements laid out in Sec. 16 of RA 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), the Court wrote: The importance of the first notice, i.e. the Notice of Coverage and the letter of invitation to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process.[37] x x x
	GR NO. 170346 2007-03-12	HEIRS OF NICOLAS JUGALBOT v. CA
By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals[23] applies to the case at bar since there was likewise a violation of due process in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law when the petitioner was not notified of any ocular inspection and investigation to be conducted by the DAR before acquisition of the property was to be undertaken. Neither was there proof that petitioner was given the opportunity to at least choose and identify its retention area in those portions to be acquired.[24] Both in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and Presidential Decree No. 27, the right of retention and how this right is exercised, is guaranteed by law.
	GR NO. 149621 2006-05-05	HEIRS OF FRANCISCO R. TANTOCO v. CA AZCUNA, J.
The case of Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[27] illustrates that a transfer of ownership over a property within the coverage of CARP can only be effected when just compensation has been given to the owners, thus:"Respondent DAR issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) to farmer beneficiaries over portions of petitioners' land without just compensation to petitioner. A Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) is evidence of ownership of land by a beneficiary under R.A. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Law of 1988. Before this may be awarded to a farmer beneficiary, the land must first be acquired by the State from the landowner and ownership transferred to the former. The transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government are conditioned upon the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by DAR of the compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner. There was no receipt by petitioner of any compensation for any of the lands acquired by the government."