0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
65 visualizzazioni2 pagine
1) Isidro Bernardo was a tenant farmer of Ledda Sta. Rosa but transferred his tenancy rights to his son and left the farmland without informing Sta. Rosa.
2) Sta. Rosa filed a forcible entry case against the Bernardos and won in lower courts. She demanded they vacate but they refused, leading to a criminal complaint for violating Presidential Decree 772.
3) The Court of First Instance convicted the Bernardos but they appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction since the facts did not constitute a violation of the decree.
4) The Supreme Court agreed, finding the decree did not apply to pasture lands as its
1) Isidro Bernardo was a tenant farmer of Ledda Sta. Rosa but transferred his tenancy rights to his son and left the farmland without informing Sta. Rosa.
2) Sta. Rosa filed a forcible entry case against the Bernardos and won in lower courts. She demanded they vacate but they refused, leading to a criminal complaint for violating Presidential Decree 772.
3) The Court of First Instance convicted the Bernardos but they appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction since the facts did not constitute a violation of the decree.
4) The Supreme Court agreed, finding the decree did not apply to pasture lands as its
1) Isidro Bernardo was a tenant farmer of Ledda Sta. Rosa but transferred his tenancy rights to his son and left the farmland without informing Sta. Rosa.
2) Sta. Rosa filed a forcible entry case against the Bernardos and won in lower courts. She demanded they vacate but they refused, leading to a criminal complaint for violating Presidential Decree 772.
3) The Court of First Instance convicted the Bernardos but they appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction since the facts did not constitute a violation of the decree.
4) The Supreme Court agreed, finding the decree did not apply to pasture lands as its
July 5, 1983 Petiti!e" # Al$e"t %&l& J". Re'(!)e!t # Sli*it" +e!e"&l ,AC-S. o Isidro Bernardo was a tenant of Ledda Sta. Rosa in her Riceland in Plaridel, Bulacan during October 1972 until ugust 17!" o Isidro left #transferred to San $icolas% without Sta. Rosa &nowing, but he transferred his tenanc' rights to his son before. o Sta. Rosa filled a case of forcible entr' and the Bernardos lost before the (ourt of )irst Instance of Bulacan, and then lost before the (ourt of **eals o Sta. Rosa sent a letter to de+and *etitioners to ,acate the house and land. But the' failed to lea,e, and a cri+inal co+*laint was fled against the+ in ,iolation of Presidential -ecree $o. 772 Presidential Decree 772 of 1975 n' *erson who, with the use of force, inti+idation or threat, or ta&ing ad,antage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, succeeds in occu*'ing or *ossessing the *ro*ert' of the latter against his will for residential co++ercial or an' other *ur*oses, shall be *unished b' an i+*rison+ent ranging fro+ si. +onths to one 'ear or a fine of not less than one thousand nor +ore than fi,e thousand *esos at the discretion of the court, with subsidiar' i+*rison+ent in case of insol,enc'. o Petitioners *lead not guilt', also filed a +otion to dis+iss on the ground of lac& of /urisdiction of the court to entertain a case for the said ,iolation o 0otion to dis+iss was denied con,icting the+ to *a' a fine of P2,!"" each 1 I$ 2RIL (O3R2 /SS0ES. o 4hether or not the (ourt of )irst Instance has /urisdiction to entertain said cri+inal case when the facts do not constitute a ,iolation of P- 772 R0L/N+. o N, it 1&' ! 2u"i')i*ti!. )ro+ Peo*le ,s 5scha,es Presidential -ecree does not a**l' to *asture lands because its *rea+ble shows that it was intended to a**l' to s6uatting in 3RB$ (O003$I2I5S, or +ore *articularl' to illegal construction in s6uatter areas +ade b' well7to7do indi,iduals o (ertiorari is 8R$25-, /udg+ent of con,iction is set aside and cased di+issed