This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Indubitably, the Conversion Order of the DAR was a final order, because it resolved the issue of whether the subject property may be converted to non-agricultural use. The finality of such Conversion Order is not dependent upon the subsequent determination, either by agreement of the parties or by the DAR, of the compensation due to the tenants/occupants of the property caused by its conversion to non-agricultural use. Once final and executory, the Conversion Order can no longer be questioned. [307] | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Indubitably, the Conversion Order of the DAR was a final order, because it resolved the issue of whether the subject property may be converted to non-agricultural use. The finality of such Conversion Order is not dependent upon the subsequent determination, either by agreement of the parties or by the DAR, of the compensation due to the tenants/occupants of the property caused by its conversion to non-agricultural use. Once final and executory, the Conversion Order can no longer be questioned. [37] | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| There can be no vested right in a judicial relief for this is a mere statutory privilege and not a property right...the right to judicial relief is not a right which may constitute vested right because to be vested, a right must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enjoyment of property, or to the present or future enforcement of a demand or legal exemption from a demand made by another. [39] | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| After the Order dated 22 January 1975 was issued by then DAR Secretary Estrella, what the original tenant therein, Macario Berboso, or his successors-in-interest, Emiliano Berboso and petitioners Berbosos, should have done was to assail the said Order by filing an appeal with the Office of the President within 30 days from their receipt of the said Order pursuant to O.P. Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987,[44] or by filing a Petition for Review within 15 days from notice of the said Order with the Court of Appeals pursuant to our ruling in the case of Villorente v. Aplaya Laiya Corporation,[45] to wit:Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that final orders of quasi-judicial bodies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions, including the DAR under Republic Act No. 6657, may be appealed to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review. Under Section 4 of the Rule, the petition should be filed within 15 days from notice of the said final order or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. | |||||