After a serious study of the issues of facts and of law in cases identical to the case at bar, the LTA Board of Administrators found out that it would be more in keeping with the spirit and intention of the laws (Commonwealth Acts Nos. 20 and 539 and Republic Act No 1400) governing acquisition and disposition of the landed estates (including the Tambobong Estate) if it followed the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Marukot, Et. Al. v. Jacinto, Et Al., (GR. Nos. L-8036-38) promulgated on December 20, 1955, giving the actual occupants or sublessees the preference to purchase the lots occupied by them as against tenants or lessees who do not occupy the same; hence answering defendant subsequently reversed the policy followed by the Bureau of Lands. As heretofore stated, the lower court dismissed the complaint. In due time the plaintiff elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. In affirming the decision appealed from the appellate court pointed out that the finding of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as affirmed by the Office of the President, to the effect that appellant Matias Gongon had waived whatever right he might have had over the lot in question was factual in nature and could not be reviewed by the courts; and His motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals, Matias Gongon filed the present petition for review, contending that the appellate court erred in in holding that he had waived his right to the lot in question in favor of respondents-spouses Amada Aquino and Rufino Rivera; ISSUE: If petitioner has, whether or not the alleged waiver of whatever right he might have had over said lot is valid. HELD: No, petitioner did not waive his right whatever right he might have had over said lot Under Article 6 of the new Civil Code “rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law In the case at bar petitioner’s preferential right could not be validly waived, such waiver being against public policy therefore being contrary to public policy, the alleged waiver of his right made by herein petitioner should be considered null and void. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. The award of the lot in question to respondent Amada Aquino is set aside; transfer certificate of title No. 84738 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal is ordered cancelled; and petitioner is declared to have the preferential right to purchase the said lot. Costs against respondents. E. Hierarchy of Laws 1. Article 7 –Repeal of Laws Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 20 pages?
Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Trial court