Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CELSO VERDE v. VICTOR E. MACAPAGAL

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 170182 2009-06-18	LEONARDO TARONA v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the same vein, the record is bereft of evidence proving that the other petitioners, namely Leonardo, Eugenia, Nita, Luis and Rosalinda Tarona, have been continuously in possession and uninterrupted cultivation of the landholding as nephews and nieces and members of Juanito Tarona's immediate farm household since 1957. While personal cultivation, as defined by law, is cultivation by the lessee or lessor in person and/or with the aid of labor from within his immediate household, i.e., members of the family of the lessee or lessor and other persons who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him in his activities,[22] there is nothing in this case to show that petitioners Leonardo, Eugenia, Nita, Luis and Rosalinda were indeed members of Juanito's immediate farm household who helped him in cultivating the land during his lifetime.
	GR No. 169472 2009-01-20	FRANCISCO LANDICHO v. FELIX SIA PUNO, C.J.
The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and claims that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure.[59] For a tenancy relationship to exist, all of the following essential requisites must be present: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and, (6) there is sharing of the harvests between the parties.[60]
	GR No. 169013 2008-12-16	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. GODOFREDO G. CUANAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
At any rate, Cuanan's petition for certiorari before the CA could be treated as a petition for review, the petition having been filed on November 22, 2004, or thirteen (13) days from receipt on November 9, 2004 of CSC Resolution No. 041147, clearly within the 15-day reglementary period for the filing of a petition for review.[36] Such move would be in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice.[37]
	GR No. 171961 2008-11-28	FERDINAND A. DELA CRUZ v. AMELIA G. QUIAZON NACHURA, J.
Nonetheless, we agree with petitioners that they have not abandoned the subject landholding, as in fact they have continuously cultivated the property. Abandonment requires (a) a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or property; and (b) an external act by which that intention is expressed or carried into effect. The intention to abandon implies a departure, with the avowed intent of never returning, resuming or claiming the right and the interest that have been abandoned.[33] The immigration of the original farmer-beneficiary to the U.S.A. did not necessarily result in the abandonment of the landholding, considering that one of his sons, petitioner Renato dela Cruz, continued cultivating the land. Personal cultivation, as required by law, includes cultivation of the land by the tenant (lessee) himself or with the aid of the immediate farm household, which refers to the members of the family of the tenant and other persons who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him in the [agricultural] activities.[34]
	GR NO. 154481 2007-07-27	DOLORES GRANADA v. BORMAHECO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 1199 entitled, "The Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines," which took effect on 30 August 1954, defined agricultural tenancy thus: Section 3. Agricultural Tenancy Defined. Agricultural tenancy is the physical possession by a person of land devoted to agriculture belonging to, or legally possessed by, another for the purpose of production through the labor of the former and of the members of his immediate farm household, in consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest with the latter, or to pay a price certain or ascertainable, either in produce or in money, or in both. In a line of cases, this Court specified the essential requisites of an agricultural tenancy relationship as follows: (1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) The subject matter of the relationship is 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.[23]
	GR NO. 171989 2007-07-04	FIRST CORPORATION v. FORMER SIXTH DIVISION OF CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Settled is the rule that the proper remedy from an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals is an appeal under Rule 45 and not a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.[21] Hence, petitioner corporation could have raised the Court of Appeals Decision dated 29 November 2005 and Resolution dated 14 February 2006, affirming the assailed Decision dated 28 June 2004 of the RTC of Quezon City, to this Court via an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. It should be emphasized that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari will not lie when there are other remedies available to the petitioner.[22] Therefore, in availing itself of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the petitioner corporation resorted to a wrong mode of appeal.
	GR NO. 166421 2006-09-05	JOURNALISTS v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Be that as it may, a petition for certiorari may be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45. Such move is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice.[22] As the instant petition was filed within the prescribed fifteen-day period, and in view of the substantial issues raised, the Court resolves to give due course to the petition and treat the same as a petition for review on certiorari.[23]
	GR NO. 168438 2006-08-28	SPS. FRANCISCO G. TUAZON* AND RUTH A. TUAZON v. VICENTE G. TUAZON PUNO, J.
To determine whether a case involves a tenancy dispute, the following essential requisites must be present: 1. the parties are the landowner and the tenant; 2. the subject matter is agricultural land; 3. there is consent between the parties; 4. the purpose is agricultural production; 5. there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and, 6. there is sharing of the harvests between the parties.[7]
	GR NO. 140796 2006-06-30	PURIFICACION PEREZ-ROSARIO v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the recent past, the Court has held that the employment of farm laborers to perform some aspects of farm work does not preclude the existence of an agricultural leasehold relationship, provided that an agricultural lessee does not leave the entire process of cultivation in the hands of hired helpers. Indeed, while the law explicitly requires the agricultural lessee and his immediate family to work on the land, this Court nevertheless has declared that the hiring of farm laborers by the tenant on a temporary, occasional, or emergency basis does not negate the existence of the element of "personal cultivation" essential in a tenancy or agricultural leasehold relationship.[26]