Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CORNES v. LEAL REALTY CENTRUM CO.

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 200751 2015-08-17	MONICO LIGTAS v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
The issue of tenancy, in that whether a person is an agricultural tenant or not, is generally a question of fact.[65] To be precise, however, the existence of a tenancy relationship is a legal conclusion based on facts presented corresponding to the statutory elements of tenancy.[66]
	GR No. 200751 2015-08-17	MONICO LIGTAS v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
persons who — in themselves and with the aid available from within their immediate farm households — cultivate the land belonging to or possessed by another, with the latter's consent, for purposes of production, sharing the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or money or both under the leasehold tenancy system.[138] (Citation omitted)
	GR No. 184369 2013-10-23	HEIRS OF FLORENTINO QUILO v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES-DAGUPAN BRANCH SERENO, C.J.
The determination of whether a person is an agricultural tenant is basically a question of fact.[58] As a general rule, questions of fact are not proper in a petition filed under Rule 45. Corollary to this rule, findings of fact of the CA are final, conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal, provided that they are borne out by the records or based on substantial evidence.[59] However, as we held in Adriano v. Tanco,[60] when the findings of facts of the DARAB and the CA contradict each other, it is crucial to go through the evidence and documents on record as an exception[61] to the rule.
	GR No. 168164 2010-07-05	VICENTE ADRIANO v. ALICE TANCO DEL CASTILLO, J.
We agree with Vicente. The determination of whether a person is an agricultural tenant is basically a question of fact.[19] And, as a general rule, questions of fact are not proper in a petition filed under Rule 45.[20] But since the findings of facts of the DARAB and the CA contradict each other, it is crucial to go through the evidence and documents on record as a matter of exception[21] to the rule.[22]
	GR No. 169589 2009-06-16	JOAQUIN SOLIMAN v. PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NACHURA, J.
The onus rests on the petitioners to prove their affirmative allegation of tenancy, which they failed to discharge with substantial evidence. Simply put, he who makes an affirmative allegation of an issue has the burden of proving the same, and in the case of the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. The same rule applies to administrative cases. In fact, if the complainant, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense.[52]
	GR No. 174649 2008-09-26	LEOPOLDO JEREMIAS v. ESTATE OF LATE IRENE P. MARIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[9]