This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| We are aware of the rule requiring full payment of just compensation prior to the issuance of an emancipation patent. Such was the consistent pronouncement of this Court in Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform[65] Paris v. Alfeche,[66] Coruña v. Cinamin[67] and Reyes v. Barrios,[68] among others. The foregoing cases, however, do not involve voluntary land transactions similar to the arrangement chosen by the parties in this case. For this reason, we find that the rule requiring prior complete payment does not find application here. | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In this case, Linda, as the direct compulsory heir of the original homestead grantee, is no longer cultivating the subject homestead land. The OP misinterpreted our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche[20] when it held that Linda's mere expression of her desire to continue or to start anew with the cultivation of the land would suffice to exempt the subject homestead land from the CARL. On the contrary, we specifically held in Paris v. Alfeche that: "Indisputably, homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs can own and retain the original homestead, only for "as long as they continue to cultivate" them. That parcels of land are covered by homestead patents will not automatically exempt them from the operation of land reform. It is the fact of continued cultivation by the original grantees or their direct compulsory heirs that shall exempt their lands from land reform coverage."[21] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In any case, the Heirs of Manuel Pacquing must be allowed to retain their homestead, similar to the homesteaders in Patricio and Alita. As this court declared in Paris, homesteaders are allowed to retain their property if they show their intention to continue cultivating their property.[27] As the Office of the President found, the Heirs of Manuel Pacquing have shown their intention to continue cultivating their property by protesting the issuance of certificates of land ownership award to Almero, et al. The Heirs of Manuel Pacquing "should be given the chance to exercise their rights as heirs of the homestead grantee to continue to cultivate the homestead lots either personally or directly managing the farm pursuant to the pronouncement in the Paris case."[28] | |||||
|
2014-10-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| However, there was no evidence of payment prior to the cancellation of the petitioner's TCTs submitted here. The requirement of prior payment was found in Republic Act No. 6657 and Presidential Decree No. 27, under which full payment by the intended beneficiary was a condition prior to the award of an EP. We have explicitly pronounced in Coruña v. Cinamin[78] that the emancipation of tenants does not come free. The transfer of lands under Presidential Decree No. 27 remained subject to the terms and conditions provided in said law. In Paris v. Alfeche,[79] we said: x x x. Section 2 of PD 266 states: | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the main, the CA predicated its reversal action on the interplay of the ensuing premises, juxtaposed with the pertinent pronouncements in the cited cases of Natalia Realty, Inc. v. DAR[24] and Paris v. Alfeche,[25] among other landmark agrarian cases, thus: (1) Agricultural lands found within the boundaries of declared townsite reservations are reclassified for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the reservation, as in the case of agricultural lands situated within the LS Townsite reservation upon its establishment pursuant to Proclamation 1637. | |||||
|
2009-10-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In the first place, the Emancipation Patents and the Transfer Certificates of Title should not have been issued to petitioners without full payment of the just compensation.[19] Under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 266,[20] the DAR will issue the Emancipation Patents only after the tenant-farmers have fully complied with the requirements for a grant of title under PD 27. Although PD 27 states that the tenant-farmers are already deemed owners of the land they till, it is understood that full payment of the just compensation has to be made first before title is transferred to them.[21] Thus, Section 6 of EO 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired under PD 27 may be transferred only after the agrarian reform beneficiary has fully paid the amortizations. In Coruña v. Cinamin,[22] the Court held: As discussed above, the laws mandate the full compensation for the lands acquired under Pres. Decree No. 27 prior to the issuance of emancipation patents. This is understandable particularly since the emancipation patent presupposes that the grantee thereof has already complied with all the requirements prescribed by Pres. Decree No. 27. x x x | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| On one hand, PD No. 27 provides the formula to be used in arriving at the exact total cost of the acquired lands:[44] | |||||
|
2006-05-05 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Simply put, just compensation is the fair market value or the price which a buyer will pay without coercion and a seller will accept without compulsion.[37] Evidently, the law recognizes that the land's exact value, or the just compensation to be given the landowner, cannot just be assumed; it must be determined with certainty before the land titles are transferred.[38] Expropriation of landholdings covered by R.A. No. 6657 take place, not on the effectivity of the Act on June 15, 1988, but on the payment of just compensation. | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We rule that, since Angelina Rodriquez no longer had any rights over the parcels of land in question, the EPs issued to her on January 10, 1990 covering the subject landholdings were clearly issued by mistake. EPs can only be issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries and Angelina Rodriguez was no longer one at the time of their issuance in her name.[25] | |||||