CASE 2016-0034: HEIRS OF EXEQUIEL HAGORILES, NAMELY, PACITA P. HAGORILES, CONSEJO H. SABIDONG, CESAR HAGORILES, REYNALDO HAGORILES, ANITA H. GERONGANI, LOURDES H. CAPISTRANO, ANA LINA H. BOLUSO, AND SUZETTE H. PENAFLORIDA, ALL REPRESENTED BY ANA LINA H. BOLUSO, VS. ROMEO HERNAEZ, MILAGROS VILLANUEVA, CRISANTO CANJA, NENA BAYOG, VENANCIO SEMILON, GAUDENCIO VILLANUEVA, VIRGINIA DAGOHOY, VIRGILIO CANJA, FELIX CASTILLO AND TEOFILO HERNAEZ, GAUDENCIO ARNAEZ, BENJAMIN COSTOY, ERMIN VILLANUEVA, MARCELINO AMAR, AND COURT OF APPEALS, (G.R. NO. 199628, 20 APRIL 2016, BRION, J.) (SUBJECT/S: LAND TENANCY; JURISDICTION OF DARAB VS. JURISDICTION OF DAR SECRETARY; WHAT IS AGRARIAN ISSUE; JUDICIAL COMPROMISE)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the present petition for review on certiorari and REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision dated July 30, 2010 and resolution dated November 25, 2011 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. SP No. 85600.”

 

Accordingly, we refer the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board to resolve with dispatch the respondents’ rights, if any, to their respective home lots.

 

SO ORDERED.”


SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHICH AGENCY SHALL RESOLVE THE ISSUE ON RESPONDENTS’ ENTITLEMENT TO THEIR HOME LOTS?

 

THE DARAB NOT THE OFFICE OF THE DAR SECRETARY BECAUSE IT INVOLVES AN AGRARIAN DISPUTE. 


JURISDICTION OVER AGRARIAN DISPUTES LIES WITH THE DARAB. 

 

WHAT IS AN AGRARIAN DISPUTE?

 

IT REFERS TO ANY CONTROVERSY RELATING TO TENURIAL ARRANGEMENTS, WHETHER LEASEHOLD, TENANCY, STEWARDSHIP, OR OTHERWISE, OVER LANDS DEVOTED TO AGRICULTURE, INCLUDING DISPUTES CONCERNING FARMWORKERS ASSOCIATIONS OR REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING, MAINTAINING, CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF SUCH TENURIAL ARRANGEMENTS.24 

 

 UNDENIABLY, THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES A CONTROVERSY REGARDING TENURIAL ARRANGEMENTS. 

 

THE RIGHT TO A HOME LOT IS A MATTER ARISING FROM A LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP. 

 

SUPPOSE THE RESPONDENTS ARE FOUND NOT ENTITLED TO POSSESS THEIR PRESENT HOME LOTS, WHAT IS THEIR REMEDY?

 

TO DEMAND FROM THEIR LANDHOLDERS TO DESIGNATE ANOTHER LOCATION AS THEIR HOME LOT. 

 

THE LANDHOLDER’S OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE HOME LOTS TO HIS TENANTS CONTINUES FOR SO LONG AS THE TENANCY RELATIONS EXIST AND HAS NOT YET BEEN SEVERED.  

 

IT IS ALLEGED THAT THERE WAS A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT IN THIS CASE BUT NOT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. IS THIS COMPROMISE AGREEMENT VALID?

 

NO.

 

FIRST, THE COUNSEL OF RESPONDENTS DID NOT SIGN THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.

 

SECOND, EVEN IF SIGNED IT MUST HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT BECAUSE IT IS IN CONNECTION WITH A DISPUTE ALREADY BEING RESOLVED BY THE COURT.

 

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT INTENDED TO RESOLVE A MATTER ALREADY UNDER LITIGATION.

 

IT IS A JUDICIAL COMPROMISE.

 

IT HAS THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT.

 

CAN THE PARTIES JUST ENTER INTO A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT WITHOUT GETTING APPROVAL OF THE COURT?

 

NO.

 

THE RULE IS: NO EXECUTION OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT MAY BE ISSUED UNLESS THE AGREEMENT RECEIVES THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT WHERE THE LITIGATION IS PENDING AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT IS DECREED.26   

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2016-0034-HEIRS OF HAGORILES 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “JABBULAO AND THE TOPIC”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “JABBULAO AND FORUM SHOPPING”.