J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0079: THE CASE ON MARCOS BURIAL AT LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI  (G.R. NO. 225973 AND RELATED CASES)  (08 NOV 2016, PERALTA, J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petit10ns are DISMISSED. Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante Order is hereby LIFTED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“Conclusion

In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which would justify the Court to interpose its authority to check and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another branch. Truly, the President’s discretion is not totally unfettered. “Discretion is not a freespirited stallion that runs and roams wherever it pleases but is reined in to keep it from straying. In its classic formulation, ‘discretion is not unconfined and vagrant’ but ‘canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing.”‘186 At bar, President Duterte, through the public respondents, acted within the bounds of the law and jurisprudence. Notwithstanding the call of human rights advocates, the Court must uphold what is legal and just. And that is not to deny Marcos of his rightful place at the LNMB. For even the Framers of our Constitution intend that full respect for human rights is available at any stage of a person’s development, from the time he or she becomes a person to the time he or she leaves this earth.

There are certain things that are better left for history -not this Court -to adjudge. The Court could only do so much in accordance with the clearly established rules and principles. Beyond that, it is ultimately for the people themselves, as the sovereign, to decide, a task that may require the better perspective that the passage of time provides. In the meantime, the country must move on and let this issue rest.”

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

 scd-2016-0079-saturnino-c-ocampo-et-al

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”.

CASE 2016-0078: GONZALO PUY AT & SONS, INC., PETITIONER, – VERSUS RUBEN ALCAIDE (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY GLORIA ALCAIDE, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FARMERBENEFICIARIES, RESPONDENT. (G.R. NO. 167952, 19 OCT 2016, VELASCO, JR., J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplement to Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration are GRANTED and the February 1, 2012 Decision of this Court is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE.

The instant petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated February 1, 2005 and the Resolution dated April 25, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 86069 are REINSTATED and AFFIRMED and, consequently, the Orders dated June 8, 2001 and November 5, 2001 of the Depaiiment of Agrarian Reform Secretary are REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.’

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“Evidently, none of the abovementioned description of land would negate the determination of the DAR that the subject landholding is indeed an agricultural land. Whether the subject landholding is presently being cultivated or not or whether the same is sugarland, cornland, unirrigated or in-igated riceland is of no moment. The primordial consideration is whether the subject landholding 1s an agricultural land which falls within the coverage of CARP.

Moreover, any doubt as to the conduct of an ocular inspection and as to the nature and character of the subject landholding should be obviated with the issuance of the Memorandum28 dated March 3, 2005 addressed to Luis B. Bueno, Jr., Assistant Regional Director for Operations of DAR Regional Office Region IV-A, and prepared by Catalina D. Causaren, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Laguna, where it was stated that an ocular inspection has been conducted and that the subject landholding is indeed an agricultural land.

. . . . .

And second, petitioner has miserably failed to present any evidence that would support its contention that the subject landholding has already been validly reclassified from “agricultural” to “industrial” land. According to petitioner, the subject landholding has already been reclassified as industrial land by the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Bifian, and that pursuant to such reclassification, petitioner has been assessed, and is paying, realty taxes based on this new classification.

Indeed, the subject landholding had been reclassified under Kapasiyahan Blg. 03-(89)31 dated January 7, 1989 of the Municipality of Bifian, Laguna. It is worth noting, however, that s~id reclassification has not been approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board based on its Certification32 dated October 16, 1997

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

scd-2016-0078-gonzalo-puyat-sons-inc-vs-ruben-aldaide 

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”.