This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-03-12 |
|||||
| As clearly laid down in Qua v. Court of Appeals[12] and subsequently in Benavidez v. Court of Appeals,[13] the doctrine is well-settled that the allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question does not automatically make the case an agrarian dispute. It is necessary to first establish the existence of a tenancy relationship between the party litigants. The following essential requisites must concur in order to establish a tenancy relationship: (a) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (b) the subject matter is agricultural land; (c) there is consent; (d) the purpose is agricultural production; (e) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (f) there is a sharing of harvests between the parties.[14] | |||||