Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. PAULINO FRANCO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court had in fact passed upon a similar matter before. Thus in DAR v. Franco,[7] it pronounced: Thus, the DAR Regional Office VII, in coordination with the Philippine Tourism Authority, has to determine precisely which areas are for tourism development and excluded from the Operation Land Transfer and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. And suffice it to state here that the Court has repeatedly ruled that lands already classified as non-agricultural before the enactment of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988 do not need any conversion clearance.[8] (emphasis and underscoring supplied).
	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
Of significance also in the present petitions is the issuance on August 3, 2007 of Executive Order No. 647[19] by President Arroyo which proclaimed the areas in the Nasugbu Tourism Development Plan as Special Tourism Zone. Pursuant to said Executive Order, the PTA completed its validation of 21 out of 42 barangays as tourism priority areas, hence, it is only after such completion that these identified lands may be subjected to reclassification proceedings.
	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
While Natalia Realty, Inc. v. DAR and NHA v. Allarde may be applied as judicial precedents in this case, the same cannot be said for DAR v. Franco.[62]
	GR NO. 166781 2006-09-05	ALEJANDRO MORAGA v. SPS. JULIAN AND FELICIDAD SOMO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70051, limited itself to the issue presented by petitioner, the contrary happened in CA-G.R. SP No. 63895, when the Court of Appeals fell into the same pitfall as the DARAB in fiddling with the issue of security of tenure. This conduct of the DARAB and the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63895 cannot be countenanced. First, it goes against the tenet that "courts of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a question not in issue."[14] A judgment that goes outside the issues and purports to adjudicate something on which the court did not hear the parties, is not only irregular but also extra-judicial and invalid.[15] This norm does not only apply to courts but also to quasi- judicial bodies such as the DARAB.[16] Prescinding from this rule, the DARAB ruling on security of tenure, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63895, is therefore irrregular and invalid. From this disquisition, it is readily clear that the decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 63895 is valid only insofar as it ruled that petitioner can no longer exercise his right to redeem the said property. Res judicata is not applicable because CA-G.R. SP No. 63895, in effect, has no ruling on the issue of security of tenure which CA-G.R. SP No. 70051 could have modified.
	GR NO. 139628 2006-05-05	KAORU TOKUDA v. MILAGROS GONZALES QUISUMBING, J.
The RTC deemed the case submitted for decision due to the parties' failure to appear for the July 6, 1992 hearing despite due notice. Petitioners received the notice of the order submitting the case for decision on July 17, 1992. However, they did not question the said order before the RTC. It is now too late in the day to raise the said issue for the first time before this Court. Well-settled is the rule that a party is not allowed to change the theory of the case or the cause of action on appeal.[7] Matters, theories or arguments not submitted before the trial court cannot be considered for the first time on appeal or certiorari.[8]