50%(2)50% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (2 Abstimmungen)
1K Ansichten2 Seiten
1) Petitioner Corpuz was a farmer-beneficiary under an agrarian reform program but mortgaged the land to respondents Geronimo and Hilaria Grospe to pay medical debts.
2) Petitioner claimed respondents took possession of the land forcibly, while respondents argued the mortgage contract allowed them to cultivate the land.
3) Petitioner was alleged to have executed a waiver of rights to the land in favor of respondents, though he denied signing such a waiver and claimed the signatures were forged.
4) The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the voluntary surrender or waiver of land reform rights in favor of the government agency overseeing agrarian reform was legally
1) Petitioner Corpuz was a farmer-beneficiary under an agrarian reform program but mortgaged the land to respondents Geronimo and Hilaria Grospe to pay medical debts.
2) Petitioner claimed respondents took possession of the land forcibly, while respondents argued the mortgage contract allowed them to cultivate the land.
3) Petitioner was alleged to have executed a waiver of rights to the land in favor of respondents, though he denied signing such a waiver and claimed the signatures were forged.
4) The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the voluntary surrender or waiver of land reform rights in favor of the government agency overseeing agrarian reform was legally
1) Petitioner Corpuz was a farmer-beneficiary under an agrarian reform program but mortgaged the land to respondents Geronimo and Hilaria Grospe to pay medical debts.
2) Petitioner claimed respondents took possession of the land forcibly, while respondents argued the mortgage contract allowed them to cultivate the land.
3) Petitioner was alleged to have executed a waiver of rights to the land in favor of respondents, though he denied signing such a waiver and claimed the signatures were forged.
4) The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the voluntary surrender or waiver of land reform rights in favor of the government agency overseeing agrarian reform was legally
G.R. No. 13529. !une "# 2$$$ %a&'s( Petitioner Corpuz was a farmer-beneficiary under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program of the Department of Agrarian eform (DA) and was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) o!er two parce"s of agricu"tura" "and# former"y owned and registered under a certain $"orentino Chioco% To pay for his wife&s hospita"ization# petitioner mortgaged the sub'ect "and in fa!or of (irginia de Leon% )pon e*piration# he again mortgaged it to espondent +i"aria ,rospe# wife of ,eronimo ,rospe# for four years as guarantee for the "oan% The parties e*ecuted a contract which a""owed the respondents to use or cu"ti!ate the "and during the duration of the mortgage% Petitioner instituted an action for reco!ery of possession with DAA-% + e a""eged that they had entered the disputed "and by force and intimidation and destroyed the pa"ay he p"anted on the "and% .n the respondent/s Answer# she c"aimed that the contract a""owed her to ta0e o!er the possession and cu"ti!ation of the property unti" the "atter paid his "oan% .nstead of paying his "oan# petitioner a""eged"y e*ecuted a 12ai!er of ights1
o!er the "andho"ding in fa!or of respondents% Petitioner denied a""eging that the signatures on the 2ai!er were forged% Pro!incia" Agrarian eform Ad'udicator (PAAD) ru"ed that petitioner abandoned and surrendered the "andho"ding to the 3amahang 4ayon of 5a"aya recommending the rea""ocation of the said "ots to the respondent spouses# who were the 1most 6ua"ified farmer7s8-beneficiaries%1
The appe""ate court affirmed decision# hence this appea"% Issue(p Did the petitioner abandon or !o"untari"y surrendered his rights as a beneficiary under PD 9:; HEL)( *+e Pe',',on ,s de-o,d o. /e0,'. 3upreme Court DENIED instant petition and the assai"ed Decision and eso"ution was A$$.5<D insofar as it dismissed petitioner&s appea"% The sa"e# transfer or con!eyance of "and reform rights are# as a ru"e# !oid in order to pre!ent a circum!ention of agrarian reform "aws% +owe!er# in the present case# the !o"untary surrender or wai!er of these rights in fa!or of the 3amahang 4ayon is !a"id because such action is deemed a "ega""y permissib"e con!eyance in fa!or of the go!ernment% After the surrender or wai!er of said "and reform rights# the Department of Agrarian eform# which too0 contro" of the property# !a"id"y awarded it to pri!ate respondents%