Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 169472 2009-01-20	FRANCISCO LANDICHO v. FELIX SIA PUNO, C.J.
The case before us involves the determination of whether the petitioners are tenants of the land purchased by the respondent, which is essentially a question of fact. As a general rule, questions of fact are not proper in a petition under Rule 45.[44] But, since the findings of facts of the DARAB and the Court of Appeals contradict each other, it is crucial to go through the evidence and documents on record as a matter of exception to the rule.[45]
	GR No. 153595 2007-11-23	CORNELIO DE JESUS v. MOLDEX REALTY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The question of whether one is a tenant is basically a question of fact, which is not proper in a petition under Rule 45. Nonetheless, since the findings of facts of the DARAB and the CA contradict each other, the Court must now go through the evidence and documents on record as a matter of exception to the rule.[7]
	GR No. 144244 2005-11-11	ESTER DELOSO v. SPS. ALFONSO MARAPAO AND HERMINIA P. MARAPAO TINGA, J.
It has been held that even 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.[18] The question of agricultural leasehold relationship cannot be made to depend on mere certifications issued by the president or officers of associations and organizations.[19]