This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-03-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We agree with the CA that the mere issuance of the CLT does not vest full ownership on the holder[26] and does not automatically operate to divest the landowner of all of his rights over the landholding. The holder must first comply with certain mandatory requirements to effect a transfer of ownership. Under R.A. No. 6657[27] in relation with P.D. No. 27[28] and E.O. No. 228,[29] the title to the landholding shall be issued to the tenant-farmer only upon the satisfaction of the following requirements: (1) payment in full of the just compensation for the landholding, duly determined by final judgment of the proper court; (2) possession of the qualifications of a farmer-beneficiary under the law; (3) full-pledged membership of the farmer-beneficiary in a duly recognized farmers' cooperative; and (4) actual cultivation of the landholding. We explained in several cases that while a tenant with a CLT is deemed the owner of a landholding, the CLT does not vest full ownership on him.[30] The tenant-holder of a CLT merely possesses an inchoate right that is subject to compliance with certain legal preconditions for perfecting title and acquiring full ownership. For these reasons, we hold that Lorenzo's right and claim to ownership over the disputed lot were, at most, inchoate.[31] | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals correctly held that respondents did not abandon their house. Abandonment requires (a) a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or property; and (b) an external act by which that intention is expressed or carried into effect. The intention to abandon implies a departure, with the avowed intent of never returning, resuming or claiming the right and the interest that have been abandoned.[23] There is none in this case. | |||||