J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

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”.

CASE 2016-0033: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GERRY LIPATA y ORTIZA (G.R. No. 200302, 20 APRIL 2016, CARPIO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: CIVIL LIABILITY/IES IN MURDER CASES WHERE ACCUSED DIES PRIOR TO FINAL JUDGMENT) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. LIPATA)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the Decision promulgated on 31 May 2011 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04461. The criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto of appellant Gerry Lipata y Ortiza are declared EXTINGUISHED by his death prior to final judgment.

Let a copy, of this Decision be forwarded to the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

We summarized our ruling in Bayotas as follows:

1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.”

2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a) Law b) Contracts c) Quasi-contracts d) x x x e) Quasi-delicts

3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.

4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the privateoffended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible deprivation of right by prescription.30 (Emphases supplied)

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

SCD-2016-0033-LIPATA

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 2016-0032: MELECIO DOMINGO VS. SPOUSES GENARO MOLINA AND ELENA B. MOLINA, SUBSTITUTED BY ESTER MOLINA,( G.R. NO. 200274, 20 APRIL 2016, BRION,J.:)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the petition for review on certiorari. The decision dated August 9, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94160 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“It is well settled that when the trial court’s factual findings have been affirmed by the CA, the findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court and may no longer be reviewed on Rule 45 petitions.19 While there are exceptions20 to this rule, the Court finds no applicable exception with respect to the lower courts’ finding that the subject property was Anastacio and Flora’s conjugal property. Records before the Court show that the parties did not dispute the conjugal nature of the property.”

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

SCD-2016-0032-DOMINGO

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”.