Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FROILAN DE GUZMAN v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 169331 2011-09-05	AGAPITO ROM v. ROXAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Indeed, respondent had previously voluntarily offered to sell to the DAR Hacienda Caylaway, where the properties subject of this case are located. However, this offer to sell became irrelevant because respondent was later able to establish before the DAR that the subject 27 parcels of land were reclassified as non-agricultural (residential) by virtue of (Nasugbu) Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4 prior to the effectivity of the CARL on June 15, 1988. "In Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform,[56] it was held that lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL including lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than the DAR."[57] This being the case, respondent is not bound by its previous voluntary offer to sell because the subject properties cannot be the subject of a VOS, they being clearly beyond the CARP's coverage.
	GR No. 176487 2009-08-25	REPUBLIC v. FAR EAST ENTERPRISES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court recognizes the power of a local government to reclassify and convert lands through local ordinance, especially if said ordinance is approved by the HLURB.[58] In Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. Court Appeals,[59] we acknowledged the power of local government units to adopt zoning ordinances. Discretion is vested in the appropriate government agencies to determine the suitability of a land for residential, commercial, industrial or other purposes.[60] It is also a settled rule that an ordinance enjoys the presumption of validity.[61] Having the power to classify lands, the local government unit may consider factors that are just, reasonable and legal, for it is within the local government unit's power to determine these. However, if they abuse their authority in the performance of this duty, the courts, if prompted, can step in.
	GR No. 166748 2009-04-24	LAUREANO V. HERMOSO v. CA NACHURA, J.
Under R.A. No. 6389, the condition imposed on the landowner to implement the conversion of the agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes within a certain period was deleted. With the enactment of the amendatory law, the condition imposed on the landowner to implement the conversion of the agricultural land to a non-agricultural purpose within a certain period was deleted.[29] The remedy left available to the tenant is to claim disturbance compensation.
	GR No. 168394 2008-10-06	AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. LORETO G. NICOLAS REYES, R.T., J.
The Natalia ruling was reiterated in Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[37] Junio v. Garilao,[38] and De Guzman v. Court of Appeals.[39]