Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    CRC 1447 Inc. vs. Rosalinda Calbatea Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Mark Dennis Asuncion
    Case Digest

    Copyright:

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

    CRC 1447 Inc. vs. Rosalinda Calbatea Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Mark Dennis Asuncion
    3 views2 pages
    Case Digest

    Original Title

    CRC 1447 INC. VS. ROSALINDA CALBATEA ET AL

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Case Digest

    Copyright:

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

    CRC 1447 Inc. vs. Rosalinda Calbatea Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Mark Dennis Asuncion
    Case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CRC 1447 INC. VS. ROSALINDA CALBATEA ET AL, G.R. NO.

    237102, MARCH 4, 2020

    Facts:
    • The case involves a property owned by Liberty Hizon Vda. De Luna
    and Eufemia Rivera.
    • The property was subjected to a Notice of Coverage under the
    Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) in 1993.
    • Rivera filed a petition for extension in 2004, which was denied by
    the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
    • CRC 1447, Inc. purchased the property in 2006 and registered it
    under its name.
    • The DAR issued a Notice of Coverage in 2007, denying Rivera's
    extension.
    • The petitioner received a Notice of Coverage in 2008, but a
    petition to lift it was denied.
    • The petitioner filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession against
    respondents, who sought dismissal on the grounds of lack of
    jurisdiction.
    • The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the dismissal, and the
    Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.
    • The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
    Issue:
    Whether the courts correctly dismissed the case for lack
    of jurisdiction.
    Ruling:
     The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the case
    for lack of jurisdiction.
    Ratio:
     Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an
    action is determined by the allegations in the
    complaint.
     In this case, the subject property is an agricultural
    land placed under the coverage of the CARP.
     The issue of possession or use of the property falls
    within the jurisdiction of the DARAB.
     The DARAB has primary jurisdiction to determine and
    adjudicate agrarian reform matters.
     The DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over all
    matters involving the implementation of agrarian
    reform.
     Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the issue of
    the recovery of possession of a property under the
    CARP falls within the jurisdiction of the DARAB,
    resulting in the dismissal of the case for lack of
    jurisdiction.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy