Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 views

    #62 - Sps Pasco Vs Pison-Arceo - NG

    Uploaded by

    Andrew
    The Supreme Court ruled that a landowner can eject individuals identified as potential beneficiaries of an agrarian reform program from the landowner's property, as long as the individuals do not have a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and actual possession of the land. While the property was under review for coverage by the agrarian reform program, this did not automatically transfer ownership to the government or vest rights in the potential beneficiaries. The rights and responsibilities of beneficiaries only commence once the Department of Agrarian Reform makes an official award of the land, evidenced by a CLOA. As the petitioners did not have a CLOA or actual possession, the landowner retained the right to eject them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    #62 - Sps Pasco Vs Pison-Arceo - NG

    Uploaded by

    Andrew
    75 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that a landowner can eject individuals identified as potential beneficiaries of an agrarian reform program from the landowner's property, as long as the individuals do not have a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and actual possession of the land. While the property was under review for coverage by the agrarian reform program, this did not automatically transfer ownership to the government or vest rights in the potential beneficiaries. The rights and responsibilities of beneficiaries only commence once the Department of Agrarian Reform makes an official award of the land, evidenced by a CLOA. As the petitioners did not have a CLOA or actual possession, the landowner retained the right to eject them.

    Original Title

    #62_Sps Pasco vs Pison-Arceo_Ng copy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that a landowner can eject individuals identified as potential beneficiaries of an agrarian reform program from the landowner's property, as long as the individuals do not have a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and actual possession of the land. While the property was under review for coverage by the agrarian reform program, this did not automatically transfer ownership to the government or vest rights in the potential beneficiaries. The rights and responsibilities of beneficiaries only commence once the Department of Agrarian Reform makes an official award of the land, evidenced by a CLOA. As the petitioners did not have a CLOA or actual possession, the landowner retained the right to eject them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    75 views2 pages

    #62 - Sps Pasco Vs Pison-Arceo - NG

    Uploaded by

    Andrew
    The Supreme Court ruled that a landowner can eject individuals identified as potential beneficiaries of an agrarian reform program from the landowner's property, as long as the individuals do not have a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and actual possession of the land. While the property was under review for coverage by the agrarian reform program, this did not automatically transfer ownership to the government or vest rights in the potential beneficiaries. The rights and responsibilities of beneficiaries only commence once the Department of Agrarian Reform makes an official award of the land, evidenced by a CLOA. As the petitioners did not have a CLOA or actual possession, the landowner retained the right to eject them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    AGRARIAN LAW Topic: When the Rights and Obligations of Beneficiary Commence

    AND SOCIAL
    LEGISLATION

    Title: SPOUSES JESUS AND EVANGELINE PASCO, GR No. 165501


    PETITIONERS, VS. PISON-ARCEO AGRICULTURAL
    AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. Date: March 28, 2006

    Ponente: CARPIO MORALES, J

    Division: THIRD DIVISION

    Doctrine: The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries begin from their receipt of a duly registered Certificate
    of Land Ownership Award and the actual physical possession of the awarded land

    FACTS

    Respondent, Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation (Pison), is the registered owner of a
    100 hectare land. Constructed on respondent's parcel of land are houses which are occupied by its
    workers. Petitioners, among other workers, used to work for respondent until 1987. They having ceased
    to be employed by respondent, petitioners were asked to vacate the house they were occupying but
    they refused, hence, respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against them before the MTCC in
    Talisay City. The MTCC of Talisay rendered judgment in favor of respondent.

    After the promulgation on June 30, 2000 of the MTCC decision or on August 23, 2000, the Municipal
    Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Talisay City sent a Notice of Coverage and Field Investigation
    (Notice of Coverage).

    In their Memorandum, petitioners argued that respondent's hacienda is covered by the CARL and they
    are qualified beneficiaries thereunder. The RTC of Bacolod City affirmed the decision of the MTCC.
    Petitioners moved to reconsider the RTC decision, contending that the MTCC had no jurisdiction over
    the complaint for unlawful detainer in view of the agrarian dispute between them and respondent;
    Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. On appeal, the CA denied the petitioner’s petion.

    ISSUE/S

    1. Whether or not one who has been identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as potential
    agrarian reform beneficiary may be ejected from the land where he is identified as such, by the landowner, who
    has already been notified by the DAR of the coverage of his land by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
    Program of the government.

    HELD

    1. Yes. The issuance during the pendency of the case of a Notice of Coverage to respondent does not, however,
    automatically make the ejectment case an agrarian dispute over which the Department of Agrarian Reform
    Adjudication Board (DARAB) has jurisdiction. The issuance of a Notice of Coverage is merely a preliminary
    step for the State's acquisition of the land for agrarian reform purposes and it does not automatically vest title
    or transfer the ownership of the land to the government

    . Notice of Coverage does not ipso facto render the land subject thereof a land reform area. The owner retains
    its right to eject unlawful possessors of his land, as what respondent did in the present case. As for the
    registration of petitioners as potential CARP beneficiaries, the same does not help their cause. Nothing in the
    records of the case shows that the DAR has made an award in favor of petitioners, hence, no rights over the
    land they occupy can be considered to have vested in their favor in accordance with Section 24 of the CARL
    which reads:

    Section 24. Award to Beneficiaries. — The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall
    commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him, which award shall be
    completed within one hundred eighty (180) days from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the
    land. Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award,
    which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in this Act, and shall be recorded in
    the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title.

    You might also like