APO FRUITS CORPORATION AND HIJO PLANTATION, INC., PETITIONERS VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT G. R. No.

164195, April 5, 2011 Facts: AFC and HPI owned agricultural lands which they voluntarily offered to sell to the government. However, they did not agree to the LBPs valuation of the land, stating that the valuations were unreasonably low and inadequate as just compensation for the properties.DAR then requested LBP to deposit the amounts equivalent to the LBP valuations in the names of both AFC and HPI. The latter both withdrew several millions from the said accounts. Thereafter, new TCTs over the lands were issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, and CLOAs were subsequently issued to farmer-beneficiaries.AFC and HPI both filed complaints for determination of just compensation. Issue: W/N LBP may determine the amount of just compensation. If so, W/N it correctly determined the value of the lands in question. Ruling: NO. The valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court. NO. In the determination of just compensation, all the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities, may be shown and considered in estimating its value. The determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function. The determination of just compensation cannot be made to the prejudice of the sellers or of the government.

[G.R. NO. 171101. APRIL 24, 2012.] HACIENDA LUISITA, INCORPORATED, petitioner,LUISITA INDUSTRIAL PARK CORPORATION

FACTS: Before the Court are the Motion to Clarify and Reconsider Resolution of November 22, 2011 dated December 16, 2011 filed by petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI) and the Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification dated December 9, 2011, filed by private respondents Noel Mallari, Julio Suniga, Supervisory Group of Hacienda Luisita, Inc. and Windsor Andaya (collectively referred to as "Mallari, et al."). ISSUE: Whether or not the farmers are entitled to just compensation. HELD: Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary landsharing.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, Petitioner, - versus SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRIBUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager, Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xSALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRIBUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 178895

G.R. No. 179071 Present: CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: January 10, 2011

- versus -

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the Honorable Secretary, Respondent.

FACTS: Respondents are the owners of several parcels of lands. MARO issued a notice of coverage under the CARP. Petitioner filed an application for the exemption of the as these were used for grazing and habitat of several livestock. Upon inspection MARO confirmed the facts stated by the respondent and approved the exemption. Thereafter, respondent filed another application for exemption to the remaining lot alleging that they need additional space for the livestock. The Regional Director of DAR denied the petition. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Director. ISSUE: Whether the Lopez and Limot lands can be considered as grazing lands and for their livestock business and thus exempted from the coverage of the CARL.

HELD: The Lopez lands are actually and directly used for grazing and livestock and thus exempted from CARL. Under the CARL only lands devoted for agricultural purpose can be the subject of CARL. It is clear that the Lopez lands were not, in any way, devoted to agricultural purposes. On the other hand the Limot lands were not actually and directly used for livestock purpose and thus covered by the CARL. It was found out that it was used for agricultural purpose due to the presence of coconut and rubber trees which makes it not exempted from the coverage of CARL. Under the Agrarian law Agricultural lands are only those lands devoted to, and is arable and suitable for agricultural purposes and does not include commercial, industrial and residential lands.

JUAN GALOPE, Petitioner, vs. CRESENCIA BUGARIN, Represented by CELSO RABANG, Respondent.

FACTS:Respondent owns a parcel of land located in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. NT-229582. Petitioner farms the land. In Barangay Case No. 99-6, respondent complained that she lent the land to petitioner in 1992 without an agreement, that what she receives in return from petitioner is insignificant, and that she wants to recover the land to farm it on her own. Petitioner countered that respondent cannot recover the land yet for he had been farming it for a long time and that he pays rent ranging from P4,000 to P6,000 or 15 cavans of palay per harvest. The case was not settled. Represented by Celso Rabang, respondent filed a petition for recovery of possession, ejectment and payment of rentals before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). Rabang claimed that respondent lent the land to petitioner in 1991 and that the latter gave nothing in return as a sign of gratitude or monetary consideration for the use of the land. Rabang also claimed that petitioner mortgaged the land to Jose Allingag who allegedly possesses the land. Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the petition and ruled that petitioner is a tenant entitled to security of tenure. The Adjudicator said substantial evidence prove the tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondent. It was also noted that Jose Allingag affirmed petitioners possession and cultivation of the land; that Allingag also stated that petitioner hired him only as farm helper; and that respondents own witness, Cesar Andres, said that petitioner is a farmer of the land. On appeal, DARAB found no tenancy relationship between the parties and stressed that the elements of consent and sharing are not present. The DARAB noted petitioners failure to prove his payment of rentals by appropriate receipts, and said that the affidavits of Allingag, Rolando Alejo and Angelito dela Cruz are self-serving and are not concrete proof to rebut the allegation of nonpayment of rentals. The DARAB added that respondents intention to lend her land to petitioner cannot be taken as implied tenancy for such lending was without consideration. CA also affirmed DARABs that no tenancy relationship exists; that the elements of consent and sharing are not present; that respondents act of lending her land without consideration cannot be taken as implied tenancy; and that no receipts prove petitioners payment of rentals. ISSUE:Whether or not there exists a tenancy relationship between the parties? HELD:The essential elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) the subject matter of the relationship is agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. Thus, all the elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are present. Respondent is the landowner; petitioner is her tenant. The subject matter of their relationship is agricultural land, a farm land. They mutually agreed to the cultivation of the land by petitioner and share in the harvest. The purpose of their relationship is clearly to bring about agricultural production. After the harvest, petitioner pays rental consisting of palay or its equivalent in cash. Respondents motion to supervise harvesting and threshing, processes in palay farming, further confirms the purpose of their agreement. Lastly, petitioners personal cultivation of the land is conceded by respondent who likewise never denied the fact that they share in the harvest.

G.R. No. 161796

February 8, 2012 PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

LAND BANK OF THE vs. ESTATE OF J. AMADO ARANETA, Respondent. x-----------------------x G.R. No. 161830

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Petitioner, NORBERTO RESULTA, EDITHA ABAD, LEDELIA ASIDOY, GIL PAGARAGAN, ROSALITO PAGHUBASAN, EDWIN FAUSTINO, FELOMINO JUSOL, EDELBERTO POBLARES, EFREN APON, NELSON VILLAREAL, JIMMY ZONIO, SERLISTO ZONIO, WILFREDO MARCELINO, ROGELIO RODERO, SERGIO ZONIO, NORBERTO FRANCISCO, AURORA VILLACORTE, JOVITO NINONUEVO, ELIZABETH ZAUSA, RUBEN VILLANUEVA, VICENTA RACCA, ROGELIO RACCA, MERCEDES VILLANUEVA, EDUARDO BIUTE, APOLINARIO TORRAL, BENJAMIN TANJER, JR., MINDA SOLIMAN, CIPRIANO REQUIOLA, GLORIA ROMERO, SILVERIO ZONIO, NESTOR ZONIO, NILO ZAUSA, ROMUALDO ZAUSA, REYNALDO ZAUSA, LUMILYN ZAUSA, GILBERT BAUTISTA, GILDA PACETES, ALUDIA CALUB, LOURDES CAGNO, ABELARDO CAGNO, BENJAMIN MARINAS, CRISPINA ARNAIZ, MARIA CABUS, RESTITUTA PRETENCIO, MA. LUZ ABALOS, ABELARDO DEL ROSARIO, CANDELARIA CEPEDA, HAYDEE MARQUILENCIA, LEONCIA ZATA, LUCIA LOPEZ, MARGARITA MANLANGIT, CRISTINA PACIS, LEONELDA FIDELA, MA. BLESS MASAGNAY, AGUSTIN CADAO, DOLORES FELICIANO, MA. JESSICA FELICIANO, MA. LOURDES FELICIANO, MA. JULITA FELICIANO, FEDERICO ZONIO, NENITA SINGSON, LIBRADA ZASPA, THELMA ELISERIO, SALVADOR VILLORENTE, SATURNINA TESORERO, ROGELIO PARACUELES, ANITA MENDOZA, AMADEO MASAGNAY, ELVIRA CAMPOS, LAURIANO CAMPOS, BENITO VILLAGANAS, VIRGILIO FERRER, SALVADOR RESULTA, NORLITO RESULTA, DIANA SEPTIMO, SALVADOR SEPTIMO, DIOSDADO LAGMAN, CLAUDIA MIRALLES, RICARDO FRANCISCO, RODOLFO FRANCISCO, ALEXANDER YURONG, ALFREDO BUENAVENTURA, ISIDRO DELA CRUZ, REMEDIOS CABUNDOC, ARTEMIO MIRASOL, MINDA COPINO, ANDRES IBARBIA, WILFREDO BALLOS, ELSA BANGCA, ARTURO CANTURIA, PABLITO SAGUIBO, CARLITO VILLONES, JOSEFINA TABANGCURA, NEDA MASAGNAY, Petitioners-Intervenors, ESTELA MARIE MALOLOS, LORETO DELA CRUZ, JOSE PAJARILLO, IMELDA ZAUSA, FEDERICO ZAUSA represented by ROSALINDA ZAUSA, LUDEVICO ZAUSA, GLORIA VILLANUEVA, ZENAIDA MASAGNAY, ELSIO ESTO, RODOLFO VILLONES, ALVINO NARCI represented by LILIA VILLONES, RUFINO ZONIO, ALBERTO ROSI, ZENAIDA VILLENA, ANTONIO ZAUSA, SALDITO ZONIO, ZACARIAS CORTEZ, LARRY MASAGNAY represented by LEONEL MASAGNAY, ERLINDA MORISON, JUAN CORTEZ, PRIMITIBO NICASIO, CARMELO CESAR, ANDRES ZONIO represented by RUFINO ZONIO, JUANITO ZONIO, JERENCIO ZONIO, ALEX CORTEZ, PEPITO VILLAREAL, Petitioners-Movants, vs. ESTATE OF J. AMADO ARANETA, Respondent. x-----------------------x G.R. No. 190456 ERNESTO B. DURAN, LOPE P. ABALOS (deceased) represented by LOPE ABALOS, JR., ARTEMIO T. GONZALES (deceased) represented by PAUL GONZALES, AUGUSTO LIM, IMELDA MARCELINO, ERNESTO NAVARTE (deceased) represented by surviving spouse NELIA NAVARTE, FLORANTE M. QUIMZON, MANUEL R. QUIMZON (deceased) represented by FLORANTE M. QUIMZON, NELIA ZAUSA, Petitioners-Intervenors,

vs. ESTATE OF J. AMADO ARANETA, Respondent. FACTS: At the heart of the controversy is a large tract of land, denominated as Lot No. 23 of the Montalban Cadastre (Lot 23), located in Brgy. Mascap, Montalban, Rizal with an area of 1,645 hectares, more or less. Lot 23 was originally registered in the name of Alfonso Doronilla (Doronilla) under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 7924 of the Rizal Registry. On June 21, 1974, then President Marcos issued Proclamation 1283, carving out a wide expanse from the Watershed Reservation in Antipolo, Rizal and reserving the segregated area for townsite purposes, "subject to private rights, if any there be." In its pertinent parts, Proclamation 1283 reads: "Excluding from the Operation of Executive Order No. 33 dated July 26, 1904, as Amended by Executive Orders Nos. 14 and 16, Both Series of 1915, which Established the Watershed Reservation Situated in the Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal, Island of Luzon, a Certain Portion of the Land Embraced therein and Reserving the Same, Together with the Adjacent Parcel of Land of the Public Domain, for Townsite Purposes Under the Provisions of Chapter XI of the Public Land Act" Upon recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources x x x, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, do hereby exclude from the operation of Executive Order No. 33 dated July 26, 1904, as amended x x x, which established the Watershed Reservation situated in the Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal, Island of Luzon, certain portions of land embraced therein and reserve the same, together with the adjacent parcel of land of the public domain, for townsite purposes under the provisions of Chapter XI of the Public Land Act, subject to private rights, if any there be, and to future subdivision survey in accordance with the development plan to be prepared and approved by the Department of Local Government and Community Development. Then came the amendatory issuance, Proclamation 1637 dated April 18, 1977, thereby increasing the size of the reservation, designated as "Lungsod Silangan Townsite" (LS Townsite), by 20.312 hectares and revising its technical description so as to include, within its coverage, other lands in the municipalities of San Mateo and Montalban, Rizal to absorb "the population overspill in Greater Manila Area," but again "subject to private rights, if any there be," thus: Upon recommendation of the Secretary of Natural Resources x x x, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, do hereby amend Proclamation No. 1283, dated June 21, 1974 which established the townsite reservation in the municipalities of Antipolo and San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Island of Luzon, by increasing the area and revising the technical descriptions of the land embraced therein, subject to private rights, if any there be. CA ruled with a decision on September 19, 2003,setting aside the Decision of the DARAB, in effect nullifying all the individual farm lots awards thus made by the DARAB ostensibly in favor of the named intervenor-appellees and necessarily all other unnamed awardees. The decretal portion of the CA decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE. The challenged Decision of the DARAB in DARAB Case No. 4176 (Reg. Case No. IV-RI-0057-92) is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The DARAB is hereby ordered to reconvey to petitioner [Araneta] the subject portions of petitioners property embraced in TCT No. N-70860, earlier awarded to intervenorsappellees under their individual EPs now covered by their respective certificates of title, in accordance with pertinent administrative issuances of DARAB.

ISSUE: Whether the subject agricultural landholding is exempt from CARP coverage, being non-agricultural, pursuant to Proclamation Nos. 1283, as amended, over and above the statutory emancipation of the tenants from the bondage of the soil under P.D. No. 27? The issue of whether such lands of the Lungsod Silangan Townsite are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, the Supreme Court categorically declared, viz: We now determine whether such lands are covered by the CARL. Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial agreement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands. As to what constitutes agricultural land, it is referred to as land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission confirm this limitation. Agricultural lands are only those lands which are arable and suitable agricultural lands and do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands. "Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot in any language be considered as agricultural lands. These lots were intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Even today, the areas in question continued to be developed as a low-cost housing subdivision, albeit at a snails pace. x x x "Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR. In its Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses, DAR itself defined agricultural land; thus x x x Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to June 15, 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use..

G.R. No. 149548

December 14, 2010

ROXAS & COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. DAMBA-NFSW and the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 167505 DAMAYAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID SA ASYENDA ROXAS-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (DAMBA-NFSW), Petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ROXAS & Co., INC. AND/OR ATTY. MARIANO AMPIL, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 167540 KATIPUNAN NG MGA MAGBUBUKID SA HACIENDA ROXAS, INC. (KAMAHARI), ET AL., Petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ROXAS & Co., INC., Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 167543 DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORM, FORMERLY DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR), Petitioner, vs. ROXAS & CO, INC., Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 167845 ROXAS & CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. DAMBA-NFSW, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 169163 DAMBA-NFSW REPRESENTED BY LAURO V. MARTIN, Petitioner, vs. ROXAS & CO., INC., Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 179650 DAMBA-NFSW, Petitioner, vs. ROXAS & CO., INC., Respondent. FACTS:This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed on January 13, 2010 by Roxas & Co., Inc. (Roxas & Co.) and the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed on January 29, 2010 by Damayan ng Manggagawang Bukid sa Asyenda Roxas-National Federation of Sugar Workers (DAMBA-NFSW) and Katipunan ng mga Magbubukid sa Hacienda Roxas, Inc. (KAMAHARI), et al., which both assail the Courts December 4, 2009 Decision in these consolidated cases. ISSUE:Whether the subject lands are exempt from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage? HELD:Roxas & Co. cannot have it both ways. It must either zealously argue its legal position if it believes it to be meritorious or altogether abandon it if it has reservations. Its Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Resolution of its earlier Motion for Reconsideration effectively coaxes the Court to wait for the outcome of its TIEZA application and ultimately delay the final resolution of these consolidated cases. On Roxas & Co.s Motion for Reconsideration, no substantial arguments were raised to warrant a reconsideration of the Decision. The Motion contains merely an amplification of the main arguments and factual matters already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its Decision. In the Courts considered view, nothing more is left to be discussed, clarified or done in these cases since all the main issues raised have been passed upon and definitely resolved. Roxas & Co. raises the fringe issue that DAR Memorandum Circular No. 7 (Series of 2004) has no force and effect since the said DAR Memorandum Circular was not published and filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register. The contention fails. It should be stressed that there is no need for the publication and filing of the said DAR Memorandum Circular with the ONAR as it is merely an administrative interpretation. Roxas & Co. is merely nitpicking on the issue. Since the DAR had initially issued CLOAs to the farmerbeneficiaries of the nine parcels of land in Hacienda Palico, the assailed Decision merely reiterated the original designation of the affected individuals as farmer-beneficiaries who should be entitled to disturbance compensation before the cancellation of their respective CLOAs is effected. This is in pursuance of the directive of DAR Administrative Order No. 6 (Series of 1994) which mandates the payment of disturbance compensation before Roxas & Co.s application for exemption may be completely granted. Since subject landholding has been validly determined to be CARP-exempt, therefore, the previous issuance of the CLOA of oppositors-movants is erroneous. Hence, similar to the situation of the abovequoted Supreme Court Decision, oppositors-movants only hold the property in trust for the rightful owners of the land and are not the owners of subject landholding who should be notified of the exemption application of applicant Roxas & Company, Incorporated.1avvphi1 Finally, this Office finds no substantial basis to reverse the assailed Orders since there is substantial compliance by the applicant with the requirements for the issuance of exemption clearance under DAR AO 6 (1994). WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Roxas & Co., Inc. and the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by DAMBA-NFSW and KAMAHARI are DENIED for lack of merit.

G.R. No. 173085 : January 19, 2011 PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Petitioner, v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES , ARMANDO SIMBILLO, CHRISTIAN MARCELO, ROLANDODAVID, RICARDO BUCUD, PABLO SANTOS, AGRIFINA ENRIQUEZ, CONRADO ESPELETA, CATGERUBE CASTRO, CARLITO MERCADO and ALFREDO SUAREZ, Respondent. FACTS: BCDA filed several expropriation actions before the branches of the RTC of Angeles City for the acquisition of lands needed to construct the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX). The defendants in this case are the registered owners of the expropriated lands that they acquired as beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Ten of these cases were raffled off to Branch 58 of the RTC of Angeles City. Upon learning of the expropriation cases filed, PVB filed a motion to intervene and alleged that the properties actually belonged to Belmonte Agro-Industrial Development Corp. which mortgaged the lands to PVB in 1976. PVB bought the land upon foreclosure but was not able to consolidate ownership in its name. PVB's motion was denied on the ground that the intervetion amounted to a third-party complaint that is not allowed in expropriation cases and that it will only serve to delay the proceedings. PVB's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA. ISSUE: Whether or not PVB is entitled to intervene in expropriation cases. HELD: No. Sec 9, Rule 67 of the Rules of Civil Procedure empowers the court to order payment to itself of the proceeds of the expropriation whenever questions of ownership are yet to be settled. At the time PVB tried to intervene, its conflict with the farmer beneficiaries were already pending before another branch of RTC Angeles City. Branch 58 had no authority to pre-empt the other branch of its power to hear and adjudicate claims before it. PVB's withdrawal of its actions in the other branch because it was found that jurisdiction lies with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) will still leave Branch 58 with no power to adjudicate the issues of ownership presented by PVB's intervention. PVB's remedy is to secure an order from Branch 58 to have the proceeds of the expropriation deposited with that branch, pending the adjudication of ownership by the DARAB.

JOSE MENDOZA, Petitioner, Vs. NARCISO GERMINO and BENIGNO GERMINO, Respondents. FACTS: Petitioner filed a complaint of forcible entry against the respondent. Respondent claims that they were the agricultural lessees of the petitioner and they contracted with the petitioner and they contracted with the petitioner to buy the said lot and they averred that they already made partial payments. The MTC remanded the case without conducting a hearing