Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FORTUNATO CAÑETE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NOS. 140836 & 140907 2007-06-08	ILIGAN BAY MANUFACTURING CORP. v. HENRY DY VELASCO, JR., J.
The trial court also ruled that by filing the case for Mandamus with Damages despite knowledge of the valid redemption made by UNICOM, respondent acted in gross bad faith; the filing of said case clearly violated the May 7, 1990 Compromise Agreement between him and IBMC; and ruled that the case was clearly related to the three (3) civil cases mentioned earlier and therefore was barred because of the Compromise Agreement.[24] The trial court's disposition in Civil Case No. 1923 stated, thus:
	GR No. 138781 2001-12-03	FELIX PASCUAL v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844,[19] provides that once the leasehold relation is established, as in the case of Lot No. 1923, the agricultural lessee cannot be ejected from the land unless authorized by the court for causes provided by law. Under Section 37 of the same Act,[20] the burden of proving lawful cause for ejecting the lessee falls on the lessor/landowner. It is thus petitioner's duty to prove that there were grounds for ejecting respondent from Lot No. 1923. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden.
	GR No. 138781 2001-12-03	FELIX PASCUAL v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844,[19] provides that once the leasehold relation is established, as in the case of Lot No. 1923, the agricultural lessee cannot be ejected from the land unless authorized by the court for causes provided by law. Under Section 37 of the same Act,[20] the burden of proving lawful cause for ejecting the lessee falls on the lessor/landowner. It is thus petitioner's duty to prove that there were grounds for ejecting respondent from Lot No. 1923. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden.