Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMAN JACINTO v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 202692 2014-11-12	EDMUND SYDECO Y SIONZON v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Assailed and sought to be set aside in this petition for review under Rule 45 are the December 28, 2011 Decision[1] and July 18, 2012 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33567. The assailed issuances affirmed the decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 12, in Criminal Case Nos. 09-270107-08 which, in turn, affirmed that of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Manila adjudging petitioner Edmund Sydeco (Sydeco) guilty of drunk driving and resisting arrest.[4]
	GR No. 177903 2012-08-22	ASUNCION v. EMILIANO DE GUZMAN RAYMUNDO MENDOZA, J.
Voluntary surrender, as a mode of extinguishment of tenancy relations, does not require any court authorization considering that it involves the tenant's own volition.[16] To protect the tenant's right to security of tenure, voluntary surrender, as contemplated by law, must be convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent, evidence. As held in Nisnisan v. Court of Appeals,[17] the tenant's intention to surrender the landholding cannot be presumed, much less determined by mere implication. If not, the right of a tenant fanner to security of tenure becomes an illusory one.[18]
	GR No. 180374 2010-01-22	BIENVENIDO T. BUADA v. CEMENT CENTER DEL CASTILLO, J.
Voluntary surrender, as a mode of extinguishment of tenancy relations, does not require any court authorization considering that it involves the tenant's own volition.[15] To protect the tenant's right to security of tenure, voluntary surrender, as contemplated by law, must be convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent evidence. The tenant's intention to surrender the landholding cannot be presumed, much less determined by mere implication. Otherwise, the right of a tenant farmer to security of tenure becomes an illusory one.[16] Moreover, RA 3844 provides that the voluntary surrender of the landholding by an agricultural lessee should be due to circumstances more advantageous to him and his family.[17]
	GR No. 151342 2008-03-04	CELSO VERDE v. VICTOR E. MACAPAGAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Abandonment of the landholding is a recognized mode of extinguishing the agricultural tenancy relationship. Once the agricultural tenant abandons the landholding, his tenancy relationship with the landholder comes to an end. It cannot be reinstated simply by the former tenant's demand for or even actual recovery of possession of the landholding, absent the landholder's consent. It should be remembered that consent is an essential element of the tenancy relationship. Moreover, the tenant who willfully abandons the landholding must face the consequences of his action the termination of the tenancy relationship and the loss of his rights to the landholding and the landholder's rights must not be held hostage to the possibility of the tenant's change of heart later on. When the tenancy relationship is extinguished by volition of the tenant, he may no longer recover possession of the property in question for such would be repulsive to justice, fairness and equity.[18] Given that the tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondents was already extinguished by petitioner's voluntary abandonment of the subject landholding, petitioner no longer has any right to the possession and cultivation of the same.