Access over 20 million homework & study documents

THE IMPACT OF PETTY TRADING ON URBAN POVERTY

Content type
User Generated
Type
Study Guide
Rating
Showing Page:
1/5
NICORP vs. De Leon GR No. 176942
FACTS: These consolidated petitions assail the Decision of the CA finding respondent De Leon as a bona fide
tenant of the subject property. Respondent filed a complaint praying that petitioners Lim and/or NICORP
Management and Dev’t Corp.be ordered to respect her tenancy rights over a parcel of land in Cavite
registered to the De Leon sisters, who were likewise impleaded as parties-defendants in the suit. Respondent
alleged that she was the actual tiller and cultivator of the land with full knowledge of the owners, who were
her sisters-in-law. Petitioner denied that respondent was a tenant of the subject property and alleged that
respondent is no longer physically capable of tilling the land. Respondent submitted evidences to prove that
she was made a tenant of the land as well as the agricultural activities of respondent and her family. However,
a Decision was rendered dismissing the complaint for failure of resp.to prove by substantial evidence all the
requisites of an agricultural tenancy relationship. On appeal, the CA reversed the findings of DARAB stating
that there was sufficient evidence to prove the elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship. Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, this petition from petitioners Lim and NICORP.
ISSUE: WON occupancy and continued possession of the land makes one a de jure tenant.
HELD: NO. The respondent being allowed to cultivate the property without opposition, does not mean that
the De Leon sisters impliedly recognized the existence of a leasehold relation with respondent. The principal
factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent. Tenancy is not a purely factual
relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land but is a legal relationship. Thus, the
intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and their written agreements, provided
these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are more important.
There is a tenancy relationship if the ff.essential elements concur: 1) the parties are the landowner and the
tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) there is
consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about
agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6)
the harvest is shared between landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee.
DAR vs. PCPC GR No. 168787
FACTS: In the late 1990s, respondent sought to convert its 280 hectares of its coconut plantation into a special
economic zone. The following year, PCPCI applied for the reclassification of its agricultural lands into mixed
residential, commercial and industrial lands. Sometime in 2003, petitioner DAR notified PCPI that a portion of
the Polo estate had been placed under the CARP and would be acquired by the government. PCPI filed a
petition for certiorari in the CA asserting that the DAR acted with grave abuse of discretion in placing the Polo
estate under the CARP. In its Feb. 16, 2005 decision, CA found that Polo estate was no longer agricultural land
when the DAR placed it under CARP. The DAR asserts that the reclassification of the Polo estate did not place
it beyond the reach of CARP.
ISSUE: WON the DAR acted with grave abuse of discretion in placing the Polo estate under the CARP.
HELD: NO. Protests regarding the implementation of the CARP fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR
Secretary. He determines whether the tract of land is covered by or exempt from CARP. Likewise, questions
regarding the eligibility of CARP beneficiaries must be addressed to him. The DAR Sec.decides to whom lands
placed under CARP shall be distributed.
In another decision rendered by the Court, it was held that reclassified agricultural lands must undergo the
process of conversion in the DAR before they may be used for other purposes. Since the DAR never approved
the conversion of the Polo estate from agricultural to another use, the land was never placed beyond the

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/5
scope of the CARP. The approval of the DAR of the conversion of agricultural land into an industrial estate is a
condition precedent for its conversion into an ecozone. A proposed ecozone cannot be considered for
Presidential Proclamation unless the landowner first submits to PEZA (Phil.Economic Zone Authority) a land
use conversion clearance certificate from DAR. This PCPCI failed to do.
Manubay v. Hon. Garilao GR No. 140717
FACTS: Petitioners owned a 124-hectare land in Camarines Sur. In November 1994, the Municipal Agrarian
Reform Officer (MARO) of Pili issued a notice of coverage placing the property under the comprehensive
agrarian reform program (CARP). Petitioners did not protest the notice and filed an application at the DAR for
conversion of the property from agricultural to residential. The Sangguniang Bayan of Pili passed a Resolution
approving the Pili Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of 1996, reclassifying the subject property from
agricultural to highly urbanized intended for mixed residential and commercial use. Thereafter, petitioners
requested the DAR Regional Director to set aside the November 1994 notice of coverage, pointing out that the
land had been reclassified and the property was no longer suitable for agricultural purposes. The request was
denied, on the ground that petitioners had already been given notices of coverage which must have been
lifted first either because of retention or exemption. Respondent denied petitioners’ application for
conversion, considering that the property had already been placed under the CARP. Petitioners filed a petition
for certiorari in the CA assailing the denial of their application for conversion, averring that respondent acted
with grave abuse of discretion when he denied their application
ISSUE: WON the act of a department secretary may be directly challenged in a petition for certiorari.
HELD: Under the doctrine of qualified political agency, department secretaries are alter egos or assistants of
the President and their acts are presumed to be those of the latter unless disapproved or reprobated by him.
Thus, as a rule, an aggrieved party affected by the decision of a cabinet secretary need not appeal to the OP
and may file a petition for certiorari directly in the Court of Appeals assailing the act of the said secretary.
Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that, for a petition for certiorari to prosper, petitioner must
show (1) the public respondent acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and (2) there is no appeal or a plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law.
In a petition for certiorari premised on grave abuse of discretion, it must be shown that public respondent
patently and grossly abused his discretion and that such abuse amounted to an evasion of positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. In other words, the
public respondent exercised his power arbitrarily and despotically by reason of passion or hostility.
Roxas and Company, Inc. vs. DAMBA-NSFW and DAR
FACTS: Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three haciendas. On July 27,
1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and took over legislative power from the President.
This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the CARL of 1988. The Act was signed by the President on June
10, 1988 and took effect on June 15, 1988. Before the
law’s effectively, on May 6, 1988, [Roxas & Co.] filed with respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell [VOS]
Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed
under compulsory acquisition by DAR in accordance with the CARL. On August 6, 1992 [Roxas & Co.], through
its President, sent a letter to the Secretary of DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The
Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu,Batangas
allegedly authorized the reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural.
As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway
from agricultural to other uses. The petitions nub on the interpretation of Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1520

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/5

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 5 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
NICORP vs. De Leon GR No. 176942 FACTS: These consolidated petitions assail the Decision of the CA finding respondent De Leon as a bona fide tenant of the subject property. Respondent filed a complaint praying that petitioners Lim and/or NICORP Management and Dev’t Corp.be ordered to respect her tenancy rights over a parcel of land in Cavite registered to the De Leon sisters, who were likewise impleaded as parties-defendants in the suit. Respondent alleged that she was the actual tiller and cultivator of the land with full knowledge of the owners, who were her sisters-in-law. Petitioner denied that respondent was a tenant of the subject property and alleged that respondent is no longer physically capable of tilling the land. Respondent submitted evidences to prove that she was made a tenant of the land as well as the agricultural activities of respondent and her family. However, a Decision was rendered dismissing the complaint for failure of resp.to prove by substantial evidence all the requisites of an agricultural tenancy relationship. On appeal, the CA reversed the findings of DARAB stating that there was sufficient evidence to prove the elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, this petition from petitioners Lim and NICORP. ISSUE: WON occupancy and continued possession of the land makes one a de jure tenant. HELD: NO. The respondent being allowed to cultivate the property without opposit ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Super useful! Studypool never disappoints.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Documents