*Bernardo vs court of appeals 168 SCRA 440

As elucidated in the case of Bernardo v. Court of Appeals (168 SCRA 439 [1988]),
security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they val
ue as life itself and deprivation of their landholdings is tantamount to depriva
tion of their only means of livelihood.
*Rupa Sr vs CA (G.R. No. 80129. January 25, 2000) -- > redemption (can be transf
erred to heirs) (see WORD doc)
Mallari vs CA 161 SCRA 504
It is not necessary for the lessee to make a tender of payment and/or consignati
on of the amount of the redemption price. A certification issued by the Land Ban
k that it will finance the redemption of the property in question is sufficient.
Manuel vs. Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 477
Considering that private respondent is the successor of her late husband, sh
e is entitled to succeed to the latter's tenancy rights
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE PASCUAL G.R. No. 1285
57. December 29, 1999
-->Just compensation
Luz Farms vs Sec of Dar 192 sCRA 51 (1990)
-->exclusions
--> The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultr
y-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of agr
iculture or agricultural activity. The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is d
ifferent from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural, ac
tivity. A great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of i
ndustrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing structures and facilities, drain
age, waters and blowers, feed mill with grinders, mixers, conveyor, exhausts and
generators, extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, anti
-pollution equipment like bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and c
oncrete ponds. Deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other
technological appurtenances.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. COURT OF APPEALS GR 105760
-->principle of subrogation
Landbank vs Belista Gr 16431
-->SAC and DARAB jurisdiction
In the 2009 case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Belista, this Court permitte
d a direct recourse to the SAC without an intermediate appeal to the DARAB as ma
ndated under the new provision in the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure. We ruled:
Although Section 5, Rule XIX of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure provides that
the land valuation cases decided by the adjudicator are now appealable to the Bo
ard, such rule could not change the clear import of Section 57 of RA No. 6657 th
at the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine just compensation is in
the RTC. Thus, Section 57 authorizes direct resort to the SAC in cases involving
petitions for the determination of just compensation. In accordance with the sa
id Section 57, petitioner properly filed the petition before the RTC and, hence,
the RTC erred in dismissing the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is c
onferred by law. Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administra
tive agencies while rules of procedure cannot.