Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. AMS FARMING CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 202664 2015-11-20	MANUEL LUIS C. GONZALES v. GJH LAND PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On August 4, 2011, petitioners Manuel Luis C. Gonzales[4] and Francis Martin D. Gonzales (petitioners) filed a Complaint[5] for "Injunction with prayer for Issuance of Status Quo Order, Three (3) and Twenty (20)-Day Temporary Restraining Orders, and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with Damages" against respondents GJH Land, Inc. (formerly known as S.J. Land, Inc.), Chang Hwan Jang, Sang Rak Kim, Mariechu N. Yap, and Atty. Roberto P. Mallari II[6] (respondents) before the RTC of Muntinlupa City seeking to enjoin the sale of S.J. Land, Inc.'s shares which they purportedly bought from S.J. Global, Inc. on February 1, 2010. Essentially, petitioners alleged that the subscriptions for the said shares were already paid by them in full in the books of S.J. Land, Inc.,[7] but were nonetheless offered for sale on July 29, 2011 to the corporation's stockholders,[8] hence, their plea for injunction.
	GR No. 185544 2015-01-13	LAW FIRM OF LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA v. COA LEONEN, J.
Book IV, Title III, Chapter 3, Section 10 of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, provides that the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) shall act as the principal law office of all GOCCs, their subsidiaries, other corporate off-springs, and government acquired asset corporations. Administrative Order No. 130, issued by the Office of the President on 19 May 1994, delineating the functions and responsibilities of the OSG and the OGCC, clarifies that all legal matters pertaining to GOCCs, their subsidiaries, other corporate off[-]springs, and government acquired asset corporations shall be exclusively referred to and handled by the OGCC, unless their respective charters expressly name the OSG as their legal counsel. Nonetheless, the GOCC may hire the services of a private counsel in exceptional cases with the written conformity and acquiescence of the Government Corporate Counsel, and with the concurrence of the Commission on Audit (COA).[66] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 187801 2012-09-13	HEIRS OF LEONARDO BANAAG v. AMS FARMING CORPORATION REYES, J.
The petitioners argue that no valid prior judgment bars their complaint before the RTC because the DARAB had no jurisdiction over the issue of ownership on the standing crops and improvements on the subject lands and as such, its Decisions dated October 17, 2005 and December 11, 2006 were void. They anchor their contentions in the Court's pronouncement in the similar case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. AMS Farming Corporation[31] promulgated on October 15, 2008.
	GR No. 183517 2010-06-22	PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v. COA PEREZ, J.
It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.[9] Because the law must not be read in truncated parts, its provisions must be read in relation to the whole law. The statute's clauses and phrases must not, consequently, be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts in order to produce a harmonious whole.[10] Consistent with the fundamentals of statutory construction, all the words in the statute must be taken into consideration in order to ascertain its meaning.[11]
	GR No. 166461 2010-04-30	HEIRS OF LORENZO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CARPIO, J.
Hence, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. AMS Farming Corporation,[62] we ruled that LBP is a real party-in-interest which could file its own appeal in agrarian reform cases, to wit: The Court of Appeals was indeed in error for denying LBP its right to file an appeal on the ground that it was not a real party-in-interest, since it did not stand to lose or gain anything from the RTC Decision dated 11 March 2003 in Special Agrarian Case No. 61-2000. It is worthy to note that in making its pronouncement that LBP was a mere depositary of the Agrarian Reform Fund and the financial intermediary for purposes of the CARL, the appellate court was unable to cite any statutory or jurisprudential basis therefor.