This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-04-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| It is a fundamental rule that this Court will not resolve issues that were not properly brought and ventilated in the lower courts.[43] Questions raised on appeal must be within the issues framed by the parties and, consequently, issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[44] | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Court has previously held that substantial evidence, defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required to establish a tenancy relationship. To support a finding that a tenancy relationship is present, the Court has repeatedly required the presentation of concrete evidence to prove the element of sharing, compensation in the form of lease rentals or a share in the produce of the landholding involved.[41] Going over the Decision dated 17 November 1995 of the DARAB and the documentary evidence considered therein, which were likewise presented by the petitioner before this Court, the Court can only conclude that there is substantial evidence to establish the existence of a tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondent. The receipts presented by petitioner covering his rental payments to respondent for the subject property, unrebutted by the latter, constitute concrete evidence of tenurial relations between them. | |||||