This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-09-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Tenancy relationship is a juridical tie which arises between a landowner and a tenant once they agree, expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly the cultivation of a land belonging to the landowner, as a result of which relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working on and cultivating the land. The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and allegations that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure.[11] | |||||
|
2015-04-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In his petition before this Court, the petitioner mainly argues that the respondents' continued acceptance of his deliveries of palay constituted as implied acquiescence of his occupation and cultivation of the subject rice land, thus, he claims that an implied tenancy has been created between him and the respondents. But for an implied tenancy to arise, it is necessary that all the essential requisites of tenancy must first be present.[27] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is elementary that he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof.[29] Hence, Jorge, as the one claiming to be an agricultural tenant, had to prove all the requisites of his agricultural tenancy by substantial evidence.[30] In that regard, his knowledge of and familiarity with the landholding, its production and the instances when the landholding was struck by drought definitely established that he personally cultivated the land.[31] His ability to farm the seven hectares of land despite his regular employment as an Agricultural Technician at the Municipal Agriculture Office[32] was not physically impossible for him to accomplish considering that his daughter, a member of his immediate farm household, was cultivating one of the parcels of the land.[33] Indeed, the law did not prohibit him as the agricultural lessee who generally worked the land himself or with the aid of member of his immediate household from availing himself occasionally or temporarily of the help of others in specific jobs.[34] In short, the claim of the petitioners that the employment of Jorge as an Agricultural Technician at the Municipal Agriculture Office disqualified him as a tenant lacked factual or legal basis. | |||||
|
2014-06-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| From the records, it appears that there is no necessity to disturb the factual findings and conclusions of law by the CA. Time and again, it has been ruled that he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof.[17] Upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor in the course of the trial, however, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.[18] | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
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. | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| A tenancy relationship is a juridical tie that arises between a landowner and a tenant once they agree, expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly the cultivation of a land belonging to the landowner, as a result of which relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working on and cultivating the land.[62] The relationship cannot be presumed.[63] All the requisite conditions for its existence must be proven, to wit: (1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant. | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It has been repeatedly held that occupancy and cultivation of an agricultural land will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant.[70] Independent and concrete evidence is necessary to prove personal cultivation, sharing of harvest, or consent of the landowner.[71] Substantial evidence necessary to establish the fact of sharing cannot be satisfied by a mere scintilla of evidence; there must be concrete evidence on record adequate to prove the element of sharing. To prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other credible evidence must be presented, because self-serving statements are inadequate.[72] Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed;[73] the elements for its existence are explicit in law and cannot be done away with by conjectures.[74] Leasehold relationship is not brought about by the mere congruence of facts but, being a legal relationship, the mutual will of the parties to that relationship should be primordial.[75] For implied tenancy to arise it is necessary that all the essential requisites of tenancy must be present.[76] | |||||