This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-09-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We also note the appellate court's reference to the well-entrenched principle that the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter on the existence of the action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein.[15] A court does not lose its jurisdiction over a case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. The court continues to have the authority to hear and evaluate the evidence, precisely to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction, and, if, after hearing, tenancy is shown to exist, it shall dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.[16] | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner insists that Rafael Avila, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents, gave his express consent in the establishment of the tenancy, and, as a consequence, petitioner is entitled to security of tenure which respondents are bound to respect. But this Court in the case of Berenguer, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[12] the doctrine of which has been affirmed in a long line of cases, held that self-serving statements regarding tenancy relations cannot establish the claimed relationship. There must be substantial evidence on the record adequate enough to prove all the elements of tenancy,[13] to wit: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent by the landowner; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of the harvests.[14] The principal factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent. Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship.[15] Unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws.[16] We agree with the findings of the CA and the Regional DARAB that aside from his testimony that he was expressly instituted as tenant by Rafael Avila, petitioner was unable to buttress that claim with other evidence which might obviate the apparent biased nature of the testimony.[17] | |||||
|
2006-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the present case, there is no dispute as to the presence of the foregoing elements, but the conflict lies in the elements of consent and sharing. To prove such sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other evidence must be presented.[11] | |||||
|
2005-12-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It must be emphasized that the complaint filed by petitioners is one for the declaration of nullity of the agricultural leasehold contracts. Petitioners' stance is that the contracts are not valid based primarily on the ground that respondents are not the lawful owners of the property subject of the contract. On the other hand, respondents contend that there exists a tenancy relationship between them and petitioners. Thus, the question whether or not there exists an agricultural tenancy relationship between petitioners and respondents arises. It is incumbent upon the trial court to first hear and receive evidence for the purpose of determining whether or not there was indeed a tenancy relationship. Thus, in David vs. Rivera,[20] the Court held that where the very issue determinative of the question of jurisdiction is the real relationship existing between the parties, it is necessary that evidence be first presented by the parties before the question of jurisdiction may be passed upon by the court. Once its existence is established, the trial court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.[21] But if it is shown that there was no tenancy relationship, then the trial court properly has jurisdiction over the case, and the next logical step is to determine whether the agricultural leasehold contracts are invalid. In this case, the RTC found no tenancy relationship between the parties and accordingly, proceeded to determine whether or not the Agricultural Leasehold Contracts are valid. | |||||
|
2005-11-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Sumawang v. De Guzman,[13] we held that the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. Jurisdiction over the nature of the action cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to dismiss for, otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant. Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation. The MTC does not lose its jurisdiction over an ejectment case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. But it is the duty of the court to receive evidence to determine the allegations of tenancy. If after hearing, tenancy had, in fact been shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. | |||||