This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-03-12 |
|||||
| Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship, as ruled in Isidro v. Court of Appeals.[17] The intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and their written agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even more important.[18] | |||||
|
2006-06-16 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws x x x. (Emphasis added) We clarified, however, in Isidro v. Court of Appeals[24] that: x x x a case involving an agricultural land does not automatically make such case an agrarian dispute, upon which the DARAB has jurisdiction. x x x The law states that an agrarian dispute must be a controversy relating to a tenurial arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture. And as previously mentioned, such arrangement may be leasehold, tenancy or stewardship. We also held in Duremdes v. Duremdes[25] that: x x x For the DARAB to have jurisdiction over the case, there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it is essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: 1) [T]hat the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. In the case before us, petitioner does not have tenurial arrangement of any kind with Beliran or Diolasa, and the necessary elements enumerated in Duremdes v. Duremdes are wanting as well. There being no agrarian dispute between the parties, the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the case. | |||||
|
2005-06-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We held in Isidro v. Court of Appeals[30] that:Based on the statutory definitions of a tenant or a lessee, it is clear that there is no tenancy or agricultural/leasehold relationship existing between the petitioner and the private respondent. There was no contract or agreement entered into by the petitioner with the private respondent nor with the overseer of the private respondent, for petitioner to cultivate the land for a price certain or to share his harvests. Petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim that he was paying rent for the use of the land. | |||||