Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 177710 2009-10-12	SPS. RAMON LEQUIN AND VIRGINIA LEQUIN v. SPS. RAYMUNDO VIZCONDE AND SALOME LEQUIN VIZCONDE VELASCO JR., J.
The requisites of consent are (1) it should be intelligent or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers; (2) it should be free; and (3) it should be spontaneous. In De Jesus v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[13] it was explained that intelligence in consent is vitiated by error, freedom by violence, intimidation or undue influence, and spontaneity by fraud.
	GR No. 181525 2009-03-04	P'CARLO A. CASTILLO v. MANUEL TOLENTINO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[25] De Jesus v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72282, July 24, 1989, 175 SCRA 559.
	GR NO. 151342 2005-06-23	CELSO VERDE v. VICTOR E. MACAPAGAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The cases cited by the Court of Appeals in concluding that there was an absence of personal cultivation in this case do not apply. First, in the case of De Jesus v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[23] it was proven during trial that petitioner therein hired the services of many persons to help him cultivate the fishpond involved in that case and that he was, in fact, cultivating another fishpond. Consequently, we concluded that petitioner was not a small farmer but a businessman. Likewise, in Evangelista v. Court of Appeals,[24] we held that petitioner in said case was not a bona fide tenant-farmer of the land in question upon the finding that he employed many plowers, harrowers and planters as well as farm laborers.