This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-08-12 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, that petitioners may have been actual occupants or tillers of the land, which may make them potential CARP beneficiaries, does not give rise to a tenancy relationship. As we held in Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation v. Gutierrez, et al.:[49] | |||||
|
2015-01-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The next question now is whether a new tenancy relationship between Irene and the spouses Andal was subsequently formed. This becomes crucial because for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over the case, there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties.[43] | |||||
|
2008-07-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It must be initially emphasized that for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties.[25] We stress that a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed.[26] In order for a tenancy agreement to arise, it is essential to establish all its indispensable elements, viz: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an 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.[27] | |||||