This document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding whether agrarian reform laws apply to homestead lands. The case involved a dispute over two parcels of land acquired by the Reyeses through homestead patents granted to their predecessors. Current occupants like Alita refused to vacate, claiming protection under agrarian reform laws. The Court ruled that agrarian reform does not apply to homestead lands, as the Homestead Act was intended to provide land to the poor and protect their right to subsistence. Section 14 of the Agrarian Reform Code also exempts original homestead grantees from its coverage if they continue cultivating the land.
This document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding whether agrarian reform laws apply to homestead lands. The case involved a dispute over two parcels of land acquired by the Reyeses through homestead patents granted to their predecessors. Current occupants like Alita refused to vacate, claiming protection under agrarian reform laws. The Court ruled that agrarian reform does not apply to homestead lands, as the Homestead Act was intended to provide land to the poor and protect their right to subsistence. Section 14 of the Agrarian Reform Code also exempts original homestead grantees from its coverage if they continue cultivating the land.
This document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding whether agrarian reform laws apply to homestead lands. The case involved a dispute over two parcels of land acquired by the Reyeses through homestead patents granted to their predecessors. Current occupants like Alita refused to vacate, claiming protection under agrarian reform laws. The Court ruled that agrarian reform does not apply to homestead lands, as the Homestead Act was intended to provide land to the poor and protect their right to subsistence. Section 14 of the Agrarian Reform Code also exempts original homestead grantees from its coverage if they continue cultivating the land.
This document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding whether agrarian reform laws apply to homestead lands. The case involved a dispute over two parcels of land acquired by the Reyeses through homestead patents granted to their predecessors. Current occupants like Alita refused to vacate, claiming protection under agrarian reform laws. The Court ruled that agrarian reform does not apply to homestead lands, as the Homestead Act was intended to provide land to the poor and protect their right to subsistence. Section 14 of the Agrarian Reform Code also exempts original homestead grantees from its coverage if they continue cultivating the land.
GABINO ALITA, JESUS JULIAN, JR., JESUS JULIAN, SR., PERO RI!ALE, "I!ENTE RI!ALE a#$ ROLANO SALA%AR, petitioners, vs. T&E &ONORABLE !OURT OF APPEALS, ENRI'UE %. RE(ES, PA) %. RE(ES a#$ FE %. RE(ES, respondents The Reyeses acquired two parcels of land in Zamboanga del Sur through their predecessors-in-interest who were originally granted homestead patents. They desired to cultivate these lands personally, but Alita et.al. refused to vacate, relying on the provisions of the agrarian reform law bac then, !" #$. Thus, the Reyeses filed a complaint against the %inister of Agrarian Reform, the %AR Regional "irector, and Alita et. al. for the declaration of !" #$ and appurtenant regulations as inapplicable to homestead lands. The &A declared that !" #$ is inapplicable to homestead' that the Reyeses will cultivate their farmholding as owners thereof' and e(ectment of the so-called tenants Alita et. al. )SS*+, Should agrarian reform under !" #$ be applicable to homestead lands- .+/", 0o. The contention that !" #$ decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of the land they till is a sweeping social legislation &A001T 2+ )0314+" to defeat the very purpose of the !ublic /and Act 5&A 6768. The .omestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor. The law gives a needy citi9en a piece of land where he may build a modest house for himself and family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the satisfaction of life:s other needs. The right of the citi9ens to their homes and to the things necessary for their subsistence is as vital as the right to life itself. They have a right to live with a certain degree of comfort as become human beings, and the State which loos after the welfare of the people:s happiness is under a duty to safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right. Section ;. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utili9ation of other natural resources, including lands of public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, sub(ect to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. 0ota 2ene, Sec. ; of &AR/ provides that <original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.= Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr. 1 | P a g e