Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ESTER DELOSO v. SPS. ALFONSO MARAPAO AND HERMINIA P. MARAPAO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 188360 2010-01-21	SPS. HEBER v. SPS. NORBERTO BRION, J.
That there was substantial compliance with the Rules because the background facts can be found within the four corners of the petition and its incorporated annexes, is not a novel ruling for this Court. In the case of Deloso v. Marapao[35] (involving the same deficiency for lack of a specific and separate statement of facts outlining the factual background relied upon), we said: An examination of the petition filed with the Court of Appeals reveals that while it does not contain a separate section on statement of facts, the facts of the case are, in fact, integrated in the petition particularly in the discussion/argument portion. Moreover, the decision of the DARAB which contains the facts of the case was attached to the petition and was even quoted by the appellate court.The petition also sufficiently discusses the errors committed by the DARAB in its assailed decision.
	GR No. 172287 2010-01-15	WELFREDO CENEZE v. FELICIANA RAMOS NACHURA, J.
From our own assessment of the evidence at hand, we find that petitioner failed to establish the existence of a tenancy relationship between him and respondent. To prove a tenancy relationship, the requisite quantum of evidence is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[15] The Certification of the BARC Chairman and the affidavits of Julian, Sr. and of the tenants of the adjacent landholdings certainly do not suffice. By themselves, they do not show that the elements of consent of the landowner and of sharing of harvests are present.
	GR NO. 148044 2007-10-19	ANTONIO MASAQUEL v. JAIME ORIAL TINGA, J.
On the one hand, the barangay clearance merely attests to respondent's residency and good moral character, matters which are not in any way material in establishing the tenancy relationship between the respondent and petitioners. On the other hand, the certification prepared by the MARO simply acknowledges respondent's being a farmer-tiller of petitioners' land without however asserting that a tenancy relationship existed between them. Certifications issued by administrative agencies and/or officials concerning the presence or the absence of a tenancy relationship are merely preliminary or provisional and are not binding on the courts.[23]
	GR No. 143111 2007-06-07	LORETO REYES v. SPS. HONORIO AND JOSEFINA B. JOSON SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, there is no evidence to prove petitioner's claim he is a tenant on the subject fishpond. His bare assertions are insufficient. To prove a tenancy relationship, the requisite quantum of evidence is substantial, defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[10]