This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-06-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It must be recalled from the facts that the farm has been placed under the coverage of RA 3844. It is also undisputed that a tenancy relation existed between Chioco and petitioner. In fact, a CLT had been issued in favor of the petitioner; thus, petitioner already had an expectant right to the farm.[31] A CLT serves as "a provisional title of ownership over the landholding while the lot owner is awaiting full payment of just compensation or for as long as the tenant-farmer is an amortizing owner. This certificate proves inchoate ownership of an agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn production. It is issued in order for the tenant-farmer to acquire the land he was tilling."[32] Since the farm is considered expropriated and placed under the coverage of the land reform law,[33] Chioco had no right to evict petitioner and enter the property. More significantly, Chioco had no right to claim that petitioner's cause of action had prescribed. | |||||
|
2012-04-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| [w]e have laid down the rule that the remand of the case to the lower court for further reception of evidence is not necessary where the Court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it. On many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and for the expeditious administration of justice, has resolved actions on the merits instead of remanding them to the trial court for further proceedings, such as where the ends of justice, would not be subserved by the remand of the case.[22] (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.) | |||||