Nicolas Laynesa vs.Uy, G.R.No.

149553, February29,2008

FACTS:

Robert Morley was the owner of a four (4)-hectare parcel of land in Barrio Tagbong, Pili,
Camarines Sur. Petitioner Santos Laynesa was his tenant over two and a half (2 1/2) hectares of the land.
The land was sold to Sixto Cuba, Sr which the Santos was remain the tenant and also the remaining
portion was used by the Nicolas as tenant. Sixto Cuba Jr the heirs of Sixto Cuba Sr sold the land to
respondent spouses Paquito and Pacita Uy for P80,000.00. The demand was made to vacate the land.
However, petition for legal redemption was filed at DARAB by Santos Laynesa of which theyu deposited
P80,000.00 in the form of a Cashier's Check with the Clerk of Court of the DARAB by way of consignation
of the redemption price of the property. Pacita Uy then filed a complaint for collection of rentals and
ejectment with the DARAB.

Meanwhile, the heirs of Bienvenido, with Reynoso and Carmelita Sunga, filed a Complaint
docketed as Civil Case No. P-1963 for Annulment of Sale of Real Estate against spouses Uy with the
Camarines Sur RTC. They came up with the compromise agreement.

Pacita obtained a certification from the Municipal Agricultural Office (MAO) that the property
was not prime agricultural property. The Municipal Council of Tagbong, Pili, Camarines Sur approved
Resolution No. 67, which embodied Ordinance No. 28 and reclassified the land from agricultural to
industrial.

The Laynesas filed a Complaint for Threatened Ejectment and Redemption with a Prayer for the
issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the DARAB. Laynesas answered that the DARAB has no
jurisdiction since the land has been reclassified.

CA reversed the decision of the DARAB.

ISSUE: WON the reclassification of a lot by a municipal ordinance, without the Department of Agrarian
Reform's (DAR's) approval, suffices to oust the jurisdiction of the DARAB over a petition for legal
redemption filed by the tenants.

RULING:

Despite the reclassification of an agricultural land to non-agricultural land by a local government

unit under Sec. 20 of RA 7160, the DARAB still retains jurisdiction over a complaint filed by a tenant of
the land in question for threatened ejectment and redemption.
Macasianovs.Diokno,G.R.No.97764,August10,1992
On June 13, 1990, the respondent municipality passed Ordinance No. 86, Series of 1990 which
authorized the closure of J. Gabrielle, G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia Extension and Opena Streets
located at Baclaran, Parañaque, Metro Manila and the establishment of a flea market thereon.

On June 20, 1990, the municipal council of Parañaque issued a resolution authorizing Parañaque Mayor
Walfrido N. Ferrer to enter into contract with any service cooperative for the establishment, operation,
maintenance and management of flea markets and/or vending areas.

Petitioner Brig. Gen. Macasiano, PNP Superintendent of the Metropolitan Traffic Command, ordered the
destruction and confiscation of stalls along G.G. Cruz and J. Gabrielle St. in Baclaran. These stalls were
later returned to respondent Palanyag. He then wrote a letter to respondent Palanyag giving the latter
ten (10) days to discontinue the flea market; otherwise, the market stalls shall be dismantled.

Respondents municipality and Palanyag filed with the trial court a joint petition for prohibition and
mandamus with damages and prayer for preliminary injunction, to which the petitioner filed his
memorandum/opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.

ISSUE: an ordinance or resolution issued by the municipal council of Parañaque authorizing the lease
and use of public streets or thoroughfares as sites for flea markets is valid.

RULING:

Properties of the local government which are devoted to public service are deemed public and
are under the absolute control of Congress. Hence, local governments have no authority whatsoever to
control or regulate the use of public properties unless specific authority is vested upon them by
Congress.

ROADS AND STREETS ORDINARILY USED FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONSIDERED PUBLIC PROPERTY;
LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO USE IT FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE OR TO DISPOSE OF OR LEASE
IT TO PRIVATE PERSONS. — However, those roads and streets which are available to the public in
general and ordinarily used for vehicular traffic are still considered public property devoted to public
use. In such case, the local government has no power to use it for another purpose or to dispose of or
lease it to private persons.
Fortich v.Corona, G.R.No.131457, November17, 1998

Facts:

The Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao, Bukidnon, on March 4, 1993, enacted Ordinance No. 24
converting or re-classifying the subject 144-hectare land from agricultural to industrial/institutional use
with a view of providing an opportunity to attract investors who can inject new economic vitality,
provide more jobs and raise the income of its people. DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao denied the
application for conversion of the land from agricultural to agro-industrial use and ordered its
distribution to qualified landless farmers. Thereafter, Bukidnon Governor Carlos O. Fortich sent a letter
to President Fidel V. Ramos requesting him to suspend the Garilao Order and to confirm the ordinance
enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao converting the subject land from agricultural to
industrial/institutional land. Executive Secretary Torres reversed the Garilao Order and upheld the
power of local government units to convert portions of their agricultural lands into industrial areas. a
motion for reconsideration filed by Garilao denied.

Deputy Executive Secretary Corona issued that herein-assailed "win-win" resolution which,
pursuant to the recommendations of the task force, substantially modified the Torres decision by
awarding one hundred (100) hectares of the Sumilao property to the qualified farmer beneficiaries and
allocating only forty four (44) hectares for the establishment of an industrial and commercial zone.

ISSUE: WON the win-win resolution was valid.

RULING:

The SC annulled the "win-win" resolution on the ground that public respondent Deputy
Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona committed grave abuse of decision in modifying an already final
and executory decision of then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres. It is undisputed that the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) failed to comply with the fifteen-day period for filing a motion for
reconsideration.
Sangalang vs.IAC, G.R.No.71169,December22,1988

Facts:

This petition arose from the Mayor of Makati could have validly opened Jupiter and Orbit Streets to
vehicular traffic