Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEONARDO TARONA v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 155580 2015-07-01	ROMEO T. CALUZOR v. DEOGRACIAS LLANILLO BERSAMIN, J.
Agricultural tenancy is not presumed. It is established only by adducing evidence showing that all the essential requisites of the tenancy relationship concur, namely: (a) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (b) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (c) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (d) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (e) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (f) the harvest is shared between the landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee.[1]
	GR No. 163928 2015-01-21	MANUEL JUSAYAN v. JORGE SOMBILLA BERSAMIN, J.
Cultivation is not limited to the plowing and harrowing of the land, but includes the various phases of farm labor such as the maintenance, repair and weeding of dikes, paddies and irrigation canals in the landholding. Moreover, it covers attending to the care of the growing plants,[23] and grown plants like fruit trees that require watering, fertilizing, uprooting weeds, turning the soil, fumigating to eliminate plant pests[24] and all other activities designed to promote the growth and care of the plants or trees and husbanding the earth, by general industry, so that it may bring forth more products or fruits.[25] In Tarona v. Court of Appeals,[26] this Court ruled that a tenant is not required to be physically present in the land at all hours of the day and night provided that he lives close enough to the land to be cultivated to make it physically possible for him to cultivate it with some degree of constancy.
	GR No. 175080 2010-11-24	EUGENIO R. REYES v. LIBRADA F. MAURICIO PEREZ, J.
In the main, Eugenio insists that no tenancy relationship existed between him and Godofredo. This is a question of fact beyond the province of this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in which only questions of law may be raised.[14] Absent any of the obtaining exceptions[15] to this rule, the findings of facts of the Provincial Adjudicator, as affirmed by DARAB and especially by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court.
	GR No. 180471 2010-03-26	ALANGILAN REALTY v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT NACHURA, J.
The exclusive jurisdiction to classify and identify landholdings for coverage under the CARP is reposed in the DAR Secretary. The matter of CARP coverage, like the instant case for application for exemption, is strictly part of the administrative implementation of the CARP, a matter well within the competence of the DAR Secretary.[17] As we explained in Leonardo Tarona, et al. v. Court of Appeals (Ninth Division), et al.:[18]