Time of taking

 

 

An Emancipation Patent (EP) constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the grantee - the Farmer Beneficiary. It is from the issuance of an Emancipation Patent that the grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in the landholding, subject to the payment of just compensation to the landowner. The taking of private lands under the Agrarian Reform Program partakes of the nature of an expropriation proceeding. The court (RTC) should take into consideration the value of the land at the time of the taking, not at the time of the rendition of judgment. Time of taking is the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to the Republic. 

Special Agrarian Court not an appellate reviewer

The Regional Trial Court, acting as a Special Agrarian Court, has jurisdiction to determine just compensation at the very first instance, and the petitioner need not pass through the DAR for initial valuation. The determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function, which is vested in the Regional Trial Court acting as a Special Agrarian Court. The Special Agrarian Court is not an appellate reviewer of the DAR decision in administrative cases involving compensation. The Special Agrarian Court has jurisdiction over the complaint for determination of just compensation, despite the absence of summary administrative proceedings before the DAR Adjudication Board. Special Agrarian Court's jurisdiction vested by Section 57 of RA 6657, as amended, is limited only to petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657 (G.R. No. 163361, March 12, 2014). 

This April in History

The Supreme Court upholds the right of Congress to compel the appearance of executive officials in inquiries in aid of legislation by partially voiding Executive Order 464 but declared valid on its face the requirement for executive officials to secure the President's consent before appearing during the Question Hour.

The Supreme Court writes finis to Hacienda Luisita v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, ruling that there must be a total land distribution of the agricultural land of Hacienda Luisita, Inc. to its original farm worker-beneficiaries who, in turn, will pay just compensation based on the 1989 land valuation.

Proscription

Trial Court judges cannot notarize affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize. 

Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 allows trial court judges to act as notaries public ex officio and notarize documents only if connected with their official functions and duties. Affidavits of cohabitation are not connected with judge's official functions and duties as solemnizing officer. Judges cannot notarize ex officio affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage he solemnized. Under the guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by members of the Judiciary, a judge duty is to personally examine the allegations in the affidavit of cohabitation before performing the marriage ceremony. Nothing in the guidelines authorizes judges to notarize affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize. The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflect with their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law (A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842).

Quantum Meruit

A principle in equity used as a basis for determining a lawyer's professional fees in the absence of contract.

The compensation of lawyers for professional services rendered is subject to the supervision of the court, not only to guarnatee that the fees they charge remain reasonable and commensurate with the services they have actually rendered, but to maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession as well.

A Latin term which means, "as much as deserved."