Skip to main content

National Housing Authority v Allarde Case Digest


Lazada Philippines

National Housing Authority v Allarde
Facts:
            Private respondent Rufino Mateo had lived in the disputed lots since his birth in 1928. In 1959, he started farming and working on a six-hectare portion of said lots, after the death of his father who had cultivated a thirteen-hectare portion of the same lots. On September 1, 1983, the National Housing Authority notified the respondent spouses of the scheduled development of the Tala Estate including the lots in question, warning them that it would not be responsible for any damage which may be caused to the crops planted on the said lots. In 1989, private respondent Rufino Mateo filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform a petition for the award to them of subject disputed lots under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). In January 1992, petitioner caused the bulldozing of the ricefields of private respondents, damaging the dikes and irrigations thereon, in the process. On March 18, 1992, the respondent spouses, relying on their claim that subject lots are agricultural land within the coverage of the CARP, brought before the respondent Regional Trial Court a complaint for damages with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, to enjoin the petitioner from bulldozing further and making constructions on the lots under controversy. Petitioner contended that the said lots which were previously reserved by Proclamation No. 843 for housing and resettlement purposes are not covered by the CARP as they are not agricultural lands within the definition and contemplation of Section 3 (c) of R. A. No. 6657. The RTC issued the writ.
Lazada Philippines


Issue:
            Whether or not the disputed land is covered by CARP


Lazada Philippines


Held:
            Lands reserved for, or converted to, non-agricultural uses by government agencies other than the Department of Agrarian Reform, prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 are not considered and treated as agricultural lands and therefore, outside the ambit of said law. Thus, since as early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate was reserved, inter alia under Presidential Proclamation No. 843, for the housing program of the National Housing Authority, the same has been categorized as not being devoted to the agricultural activity contemplated by Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657, and is, therefore, outside the coverage of the CARL.

Lazada Philippines

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 APEX MINING CO., INC., vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.,(SEM) et. al CASE DIGEST

G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 APEX MINING CO., INC., vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.,(SEM) et. al  G.R. No. 152619-20 BALITE COMMUNAL PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE vs. southeast mindanao gold mining corp.  G.R. No. 152870-71 THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS, THE HON. VICTOR O. RAMOS (Chairman), UNDERSECRETARY VIRGILIO MARCELO (Member) and DIRECTOR HORACIO RAMOS (Member) vs. southeast mindanao gold mining corporation  FACTS: A motion for reconsideration was filed by SEM. The Assailed Decision held that the assignment of Exploration Permit (EP) 133 in favor of SEM violated one of the conditions stipulated in the permit. It also ruled that the transfer of EP 133 violated Presidential Decree No. 463, which requires that the assignment of a mining right be made with the prior approval of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Moreover, the Assailed Decision pointed out that EP 133 expired by non-renew...
Post a Comment
Read more

G.R. No. 115104 Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev. Co., et al v. Court of Appeals CASE DIGEST

Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev. Co., et al v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 115104 October 12, 1998 FACTS: The Supreme Court recognized the possessory right of Macawiwili and Omico over mining claims in Benguet as against Philex Mining Corp. On the surface of these mining claims,Philex owned improvements consisting of roads, facilities, and bunkhouses that were used byPhilex in its other mining claims. Philex sought to expropriate the surface of the area wherethese improvements were located pursuant to Section 59 of PD 463. HELD: The land cannot be expropriated. Expropriation demands that the land be private land.When the Supreme Court awarded the possessory rights over the land to Macawiwili andOmico, it stripped the land of its private character and gave it its public character – to be utilizedfor mining operations. Property already devoted to public use may be expropriated only if donedirectly by the national legislature or under a specific grant of authority to the d...
Post a Comment
Read more

2015 Last Reviewer Criminal Law

1. If the marriage is not solemnized in accordance with Muslim Law, the accused cannot claim criminal exemption from liability for bigamy on the basis his religious belief as a Muslim because of the generality principle. The Code of Personal Muslim Laws, which exempts Muslim from being prosecuted for bigamy, is not applicable since the marriage was not made in accordance with the Muslim law (Nollora, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 191425, September 7, 2011). 2. C onsular officers are immune from criminal prosecution of acts performed in the exercise of function (1967 Convention on Consular Relation). Immunity does not cover slander or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide for not being function-related. A Chinese diplomat, who killed another Chinese diplomat in Cebu, is immune from criminal prosecution ( T he Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations). Unlike consular officers, diplomatic agents are vested with blanket diplomatic immunity   from civil and criminal suits (M...
Post a Comment
Read more