This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-11-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The ruling in Torres was reiterated in Corpuz v. Grospe[9] and in Lapanday v. Estita.[10] In Lapanday, the Court stated that waivers of rights and interests over landholdings awarded by the government are invalid for violating agrarian reform laws. Thus, these waivers are void. | |||||
|
2009-07-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Hence, even if we must assume that Abad for a consideration had waived his rights to the property when he surrendered possession thereof to petitioner, such waiver is nevertheless ineffective and void, because it amounts to a prohibited transfer of the land award. As the Court held in Lapanday Agricultural & Development Corp. v. Estita,[40] the waiver of rights and interests over landholdings awarded by the government is invalid for being violative of agrarian reform laws.[41] And in Torres v. Ventura,[42] the Court declared that the object of agrarian reform is to vest in the farmer-beneficiary, to the exclusion of others, the rights to possess, cultivate and enjoy the landholding for himself; hence, to insure his continued possession and enjoyment thereof, he is prohibited by law to make any form of transfer except only to the government or by hereditary succession.[43] | |||||
|
2007-09-13 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| After having voluntarily invoked before the RTC the jurisdiction of CIAC, Prudential is estopped to question its jurisdiction. As we held in Lapanday Agricultural & Development Corporation v. Estita,[5] the active participation of a party in a case pending against him before a court or a quasi-judicial body is tantamount to a recognition of that court's or quasi-judicial body's jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court's or quasi-judicial body's jurisdiction. | |||||