This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| However, contrary to petitioners' posture, the issuance of a CLT does not vest full ownership in the holder.[29] The issuance of the CLT does not sever the tenancy relationship between the landowner and the tenant-farmer. A certificate of land transfer merely evinces that the grantee thereof is qualified to avail himself of the statutory mechanism for the acquisition of ownership of the land tilled by him as provided under P.D. No. 27. It is not a muniment of title that vests in the farmer/grantee absolute ownership of his tillage. [30] It is only after compliance with the conditions which entitle a farmer/grantee to an emancipation patent that he acquires the vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding--a right which then would have become fixed and established, and no longer open to doubt or controversy.[31] | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| His contentions are factual in nature. In agrarian cases, when the appellate courts confirm that the findings of fact of the agrarian courts are based on substantial evidence as borne out by the record, such findings are conclusive and binding on the appellate courts.[26] Accordingly, this Court will not disturb the factual findings of the Regional DARAB, as affirmed by the CA, that the shares were delivered to the overseers only, and who, as stated, lacked the requisite authority to bind their principals, considering that this conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As stated above, in agrarian cases, when the appellate courts confirm that the findings of fact of the agrarian courts are borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence, such findings are conclusive and binding on the appellate courts.[37] Accordingly, this Court will not disturb the factual findings of the DARAB, as affirmed by the CA, that respondent Cayabyab was an agricultural lessee of the subject land, considering that this conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.[38] | |||||
|
2006-06-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| From the records, it is without dispute that the land subject of this case was previously owned by Ruperto Endozo which petitioners bought in 1987. At the time, Endozo sold said land to petitioners, respondents were tenants of Endozo and were cultivating the land. As tenant or agricultural lessee, respondents enjoy certain rights under Republic Act No. 3844, otherwise known as the "Agricultural Land Reform Code." Section 10 of this law provides that the existence of an agricultural leasehold relationship is not terminated by changes in ownership in case of sale or transfer of legal possession.[18] Said section reads: Sec. 10. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished By Expiration of Period, etc. - The agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. In case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding, the purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor. Accordingly, when petitioners bought the land from Ruperto Endozo in 1987, they were subrogated to the rights and obligations of Endozo. The tenancy relationship was not affected by the transfer of the ownership of the landholding. The new owner was bound to respect and maintain the tenant's landholding because the tenancy right attached to the land regardless of who its owner may be. The purpose of the law is to strengthen the security of tenure of the tenants.[19] Thus, the rights enjoyed by respondents as tenants of Endozo remained when petitioners acquired the land. | |||||