Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, in view therefrom, Judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the instant case for lack of merit. On appeal, the DARAB reversed and set aside the Decision dismissing the complaint, and ordered the reversion of the subject property to the government. The dispositive portion of the said Order, [17] dated 1 July 1998 reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the challenged decision dated August 25, 1993 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby rendered as follows: Annulling…
WHEREFORE, in view therefrom, Judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the instant case for lack of merit. On appeal, the DARAB reversed and set aside the Decision dismissing the complaint, and ordered the reversion of the subject property to the government. The dispositive portion of the said Order, [17] dated 1 July 1998 reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the challenged decision dated August 25, 1993 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby rendered as follows: Annulling the transfer of the land in question to the late Ricardo Alvarez and its subsequent transfers to defendant Mercedes Oliver and defendant Filinvest Land Incorporated; Ordering the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 201836, covering the subject land, issued by the Register of Deeds for the Province of Laguna, Calamba branch, in the name of defendant Filinvest; and Directing the Register of Deeds for the Province of Laguna, Calamba branch, to issue in lieu of TCT No. 201836, a Certificate of Title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, through DAR, for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiary in accordance with Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1992, which is the Revised Rules and Procedures Governing the Disposition of Homelots and other Lots in Barangay Sites and Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Lots in Townsites within DAR Settlement Project and Similar Other Areas under DAR Jurisdiction. The DARAB ruled, too, that res judicata as a bar against filing a complaint with the PARAD is not applicable in this case since there was no adjudication of the merits before the RTC of Biñan. The DARAB considered as self-serving and unsupported by evidence the allegations of the respondents that the consent of the Spouses Alvarez was obtained through fraud in connection with the sale made in favor of Mercedes Oliver. It also ruled that the sale between Ricardo Alvarez and Mercedes Oliver was a violation of the ten-year prohibition against the transfer of the land imposed by the Deed of Sale between the government and Ricardo Alvarez, in accordance with Section 62 of Republic Act No. 3844. Such act rendered the Deed of Sale executed by the DAR in favor of Ricardo Alvarez void, and, therefore, the subsequent transfers to Mercedes Oliver and Filinvest were, likewise, void. [18] In negating Filinvest's claim that Presidential Decree No. 1474 has superseded Section 62 of Republic Act No. 3844, the DARAB cited the case of Tipon v. Intermediate Appellate Court, [19] where the Court upheld the validity of the ten-year prohibition on the transfer of land given by the government to farmer-beneficiaries. The DARAB added that the restriction on transfer of land is contained in our present agrarian laws, particularly Republic Act No. 6675. [20] The petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Section 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals, but on 11 November 1998, the appeal was again dismissed for lack of merit an
G.R. No. 187400 - FELICISIMO FERNANDEZ, SPOUSES DANILO AND GENEROSA VITUG- LIGON, VS. SPOUSES ISAAC AND CONCEPCION RONULO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 187400 -
CaseG.R. No. 183004 - ALFONSO DIGAN, TIBALDO BUELTA, BERNARDO MARIANO, SANTIAGO ACQUIDAN, FERNANDO AGNNO, JOHNNY ORIE AND FELIMON GACETA (DECEASED) REP. BY HIS WIFE LOLITA GACETA, V. NOEMI MALINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 183004 -
CaseG.R. No. 204594 - SINDOPHIL, INC., VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 204594 -