Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 258 views

    Jose Vs Novida Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jean Monique Oabel-Tolentino
    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a 1.6 hectare parcel of land between respondents who were granted Emancipation Patents and Certificates of Title as farmer-beneficiaries, and petitioners who claimed they were the bona fide tenant-tillers. 2) The DARAB ruled that respondents had better rights as beneficiaries and the CA affirmed this decision. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the DARAB had exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents. Since respondents' titles were already registered, the DAR Secretary and Region I Director had no jurisdiction to cancel them.

    Copyright:

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

    Jose Vs Novida Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jean Monique Oabel-Tolentino
    258 views1 page
    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a 1.6 hectare parcel of land between respondents who were granted Emancipation Patents and Certificates of Title as farmer-beneficiaries, and petitioners who claimed they were the bona fide tenant-tillers. 2) The DARAB ruled that respondents had better rights as beneficiaries and the CA affirmed this decision. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the DARAB had exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents. Since respondents' titles were already registered, the DAR Secretary and Region I Director had no jurisdiction to cancel them.

    Original Description:

    Jose vs Novida Digest

    Original Title

    Jose vs Novida Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a 1.6 hectare parcel of land between respondents who were granted Emancipation Patents and Certificates of Title as farmer-beneficiaries, and petitioners who claimed they were the bona fide tenant-tillers. 2) The DARAB ruled that respondents had better rights as beneficiaries and the CA affirmed this decision. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the DARAB had exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents. Since respondents' titles were already registered, the DAR Secretary and Region I Director had no jurisdiction to cancel them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    258 views1 page

    Jose Vs Novida Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jean Monique Oabel-Tolentino
    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a 1.6 hectare parcel of land between respondents who were granted Emancipation Patents and Certificates of Title as farmer-beneficiaries, and petitioners who claimed they were the bona fide tenant-tillers. 2) The DARAB ruled that respondents had better rights as beneficiaries and the CA affirmed this decision. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the DARAB had exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents. Since respondents' titles were already registered, the DAR Secretary and Region I Director had no jurisdiction to cancel them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JOSE vs NOVIDA

    G.R. No.177374, July 2, 2014

    FACTS:

    Ernesto M. Novida,et al. (respondents) were each granted – as farmer-beneficiaries – Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Certificates of Title6 (covering
    one hectare each) over a parcel of land which formed part of a 16.4142-hectare agricultural land which was placed within the coverage of Operation
    Land Transfer. Felicisimo voluntarily surrendered and abandoned the subject property in favor of his creditors, who took over the land and tilled the
    same until 1987; Felicisimo migrated to the U.S.A. and became a naturalized American citizen; that in 1991, respondents were illegally dispossessed
    of their landholdings through force and intimidation by the petitioners after Felicisimo returned from abroad; and that as between petitioners and
    respondents, the latter are legally entitled to the subject property.

    Petitioners Mariano Jose, et.al. filed with the Region I Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) a Petition for Reinvestigation and
    Cancellation of Anomalously Prepared and Generated Emancipation Patents8 against the respondents, claiming that they are the bona fide and actual
    tenant-tillers of the subject property. DAR Region I Director issued an Order stating that the other party has better right as beneficiaries. Petitioner filed
    a Complaint for recovery of possession in the Office of the DARAB. DARAB Urdaneta declared that complainants are the tenant-beneficiaries of the
    land in question; and the he has no right whatsoever [to] the landholding. On his motion for reconsideration, the DAR Secretary ordered remanding the
    case to the DAR Adjudication Board for its proper disposition as it has no jurisdiction to cancel the EPs. Petitioners interposed an appeal with the
    DARAB Quezon City which affirmed the decision of DARAB Urdaneta. The CA affirmed the DARAB decision.

    Issue: WON the DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.

    Yes, the DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered EPs[;] the DAR Secretary, on the other hand, has
    exclusive jurisdiction over the issuance, recall or cancellation of [EPs] or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards that are not yet registered with the
    Register of Deeds."

    Thus, since certificates of title have been issued in the respective names of the respondents as early as in 1990,39the DAR Region I Director had no
    jurisdiction to cancel their titles; the same is true with respect to the DAR Secretary. Thus, their respective January 30, 1991 and August 22, 1995
    Orders are null and void; consequently, respondents’ EPs and titles subsist, contrary to petitioners’ claim that they have been cancelled. Void
    judgments or orders have no legal and binding effect, force, or efficacy for any purpose; in contemplation of law, they are non-existent.40

    The 1) reinstatement of the January 30, 1991 Order of the DAR Region I Director and the August 22, 1995 Order of the DAR Secretary – which have
    been voided herein, and 2) issuance of EPs in their favor – are reliefs that this Court may not grant.

    It must be said as well that "[ f]actual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, are afforded great weight by the
    courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are
    conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure, should not be disturbed

    You might also like