Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF FRANCISCO R. TANTOCO v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 179844 2011-03-23	EMERSON B. BAGONGAHASA v. JOHANNA L. ROMUALDEZ NACHURA, J.
However, this Court refuses to rule on the validity of the CARP coverage of the subject properties and the issuance of the assailed CLOAs. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction was initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[21] The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[22] The Office of the DAR Secretary is in a better position to resolve the particular issue of non-issuance of a notice of coverage - an ALI case - being primarily the agency possessing the necessary expertise on the matter.[23] The power to determine such issue lies with the DAR, not with this Court.
	GR No. 170685 2010-09-22	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ENRIQUE LIVIOCO DEL CASTILLO, J.
For purposes of just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking.[68] There are three important concepts in this definition - the character of the property, its price, and the time of actual taking. Did the appellate court properly consider these three concepts when it affirmed the trial court's decision? We find that it did not.
	GR No. 183409 2010-06-18	CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM PEREZ, J.
In the same vein, the authority of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform to include "lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988" in the definition of agricultural lands finds basis in jurisprudence. In Ros v. Department of Agrarian Reform,[39] this Court has enunciated that after the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in the DAR. However, agricultural lands, which are already reclassified before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 which is 15 June 1988, are exempted from conversion.[40] It bears stressing that the said date of effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 served as the cut-off period for automatic reclassifications or rezoningof agricultural lands that no longer require any DAR conversion clearance or authority.[41] It necessarily follows that any reclassification made thereafter can be the subject of DAR's conversion authority. Having recognized the DAR's conversion authority over lands reclassified after 15 June 1988, it can no longer be argued that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform was wrongfully given the authority and power to include "lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988" in the definition of agricultural lands. Such inclusion does not unduly expand or enlarge the definition of agricultural lands; instead, it made clear what are the lands that can be the subject of DAR's conversion authority, thus, serving the very purpose of the land use conversion provisions of Republic Act No. 6657.
	GR NO. 170220 2006-11-20	JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Likewise, in the recent case of Heirs of Francisco R. Tantoco, Sr. v. Court of Appeals,[26] we held that expropriation of landholdings covered by R.A. No. 6657 take place, not on the effectivity of the Act on June 15, 1988, but on the payment of just compensation.