Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 166 views

    Case Digest - Taguinod vs. Dalupang

    Uploaded by

    Aj Dalida
    - Angela Taguinod and Maximino Dalupang both filed applications for lot 11 in Signal Village, Taguig. Dalupang claimed to have been occupying the land while Taguinod said Dalupang was just a caretaker. - Rodolfo Taguinod, son of Angela, also filed an application for adjacent lot 6. Two inspections of lot 11 had conflicting findings, with one suggesting Dalupang occupied lot 6, not 11. - The DENR initially approved Taguinod's application for lot 11 but disqualified Dalupang due to a previous land award by the NHA. However, the OP ruled in Dalupang's favor, finding he had occupied the land

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest - Taguinod vs. Dalupang

    Uploaded by

    Aj Dalida
    166 views1 page
    - Angela Taguinod and Maximino Dalupang both filed applications for lot 11 in Signal Village, Taguig. Dalupang claimed to have been occupying the land while Taguinod said Dalupang was just a caretaker. - Rodolfo Taguinod, son of Angela, also filed an application for adjacent lot 6. Two inspections of lot 11 had conflicting findings, with one suggesting Dalupang occupied lot 6, not 11. - The DENR initially approved Taguinod's application for lot 11 but disqualified Dalupang due to a previous land award by the NHA. However, the OP ruled in Dalupang's favor, finding he had occupied the land

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Angela Taguinod and Maximino Dalupang both filed applications for lot 11 in Signal Village, Taguig. Dalupang claimed to have been occupying the land while Taguinod said Dalupang was just a caretaker. - Rodolfo Taguinod, son of Angela, also filed an application for adjacent lot 6. Two inspections of lot 11 had conflicting findings, with one suggesting Dalupang occupied lot 6, not 11. - The DENR initially approved Taguinod's application for lot 11 but disqualified Dalupang due to a previous land award by the NHA. However, the OP ruled in Dalupang's favor, finding he had occupied the land

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    166 views1 page

    Case Digest - Taguinod vs. Dalupang

    Uploaded by

    Aj Dalida
    - Angela Taguinod and Maximino Dalupang both filed applications for lot 11 in Signal Village, Taguig. Dalupang claimed to have been occupying the land while Taguinod said Dalupang was just a caretaker. - Rodolfo Taguinod, son of Angela, also filed an application for adjacent lot 6. Two inspections of lot 11 had conflicting findings, with one suggesting Dalupang occupied lot 6, not 11. - The DENR initially approved Taguinod's application for lot 11 but disqualified Dalupang due to a previous land award by the NHA. However, the OP ruled in Dalupang's favor, finding he had occupied the land

    Copyright:

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

    Taguinod vs.

    Dalupang

    Facts:
    -On Oct 16, 1987, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation no. 172 which declared barangays of lower Bicutan, upper
    Bicutan, western Bictuan, and Signal Village situated in the Municipality of Taguig open for disposition under the provisions of
    RA No. 274 and RA No. 730.
    -A parcel of land in Signal Village (subdivided into lots 6 and 11) became open for purchase.
    -Maximino Dalupang filed a sales application for lot 11.
    -Thereafter, Angela Taguinod (petitioner) also filed her application for lot 11.
    -Upon learning of Dalupang’s application, petitioner filed a protest with the DENR claiming that she is the actual occupant,
    owner, claimant, and applicant over lot 11 because Dalupang is only the caretaker of lot 11 whom she allowed to stay in a
    portion of the property, where Dalupang built a hut and put up a store.
    -Afterwards, Rodolfo Taguinod, son of the petitioner, filed a separate application for lot 6.
    -Lot 11 was subjected to 2 ocular inspections which resulted into 2 conflicting findings. One of the findings is that Dalupang was
    actually occupying lot 6 and not lot 11 as originally stated.
    -Subsequently, the petitioner’s application for lot 11 was approved. Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in her name.
    -Meanwhile, the DENR declared Rodolfo Taguinod as the qualified applicant over lot 6. The decision further disqualified
    Dalupang on account of a previous award of a lot to him by the National Housing Authority.
    -Dalupang appealed to the Office of the President, to which the OP ruled in favor of Dalupang stating that Dalupang and his
    family have been in actual occupation of the land. Section 3 of RA No. 274 and Memorandum Order No. 119 both require that
    the applicant must be a bona fide resident of the land being applied for.
    -Rodolfo Taguinod and Angela Taguinod lost their personality to purchase lot 6 for having been awarded of lot 11.
    -The DENR reversed its decision and declared Dalupang as the qualified applicant for lot 6.
    -Hence, this petition by Angela Taguinod before the Court of Appeals. The petitioner contended that Dalupang cannot be an
    awardee of lot 6 since he was a previous awardee of the NHA.

    Issue:
    WON a previous awardee of NHA can be an awardee of another lot.

    Ruling:
    The petition lacks merit. The fact that Dalupang was a previous awardee of an NHA lot did not disqualify him for sales
    application in lot 6. As correctly held by the OP, the previous NHA award is no longer decisive because of the NHA’s
    Administrator’s certification that Dalupang, after transferring his rights to his nephew, Dalupang has ceased to be a registered
    NHA lot awardee. To our mind, moreover, the exclusion of Dalupang from any NHA property did not result in a permanent
    disqualification for him to acquire any government home lot. To construe the disqualification as attaching to any claimant who
    became a registered NHA awardee at sometime in the past without actually acquiring the lot and despite its subsequent
    transfer for the purpose of acquiring another government lot for which the applicant fully complied with the requirements of
    the law ' will certainly lead to harsh and unjust consequences. Clearly, this was never intended by the executive branch when it
    issued MO No. 119.

    On the basis of the entire evidence on record, We find the interpretation of MO No. 119 by the OP more in keeping with the
    policy and objective of Proclamation No. 172 in relation to RA No. 730. Between two statutory interpretations, that which
    better serves the purpose of the law should prevail.

    You might also like