Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ZACARIAS OARDE v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 172146 2008-07-30	CORNES v. LEAL REALTY CENTRUM CO. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We also sustain the conclusion reached by the Provincial Adjudicator and the Court of Appeals that the testimony of Araceli Pascua, an employee of the DAR in Victoria, Tarlac, that the subject landholding was tenanted cannot overcome substantial evidence to the contrary. To prove the alleged tenancy no reliance may be made upon the said public officer's testimony. What cannot be ignored is the precedent ruling of this Court that the findings of or certifications issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, or his authorized representative, in a given locality concerning the presence or absence of a tenancy relationship between the contending parties, are merely preliminary or provisional and are not binding upon the courts.[45] This ruling holds with greater effect in the instant case in light of the fact that petitioners, as herein shown, were not able to prove the presence of all the indispensable elements of tenancy.
	GR No. 151342 2008-03-04	CELSO VERDE v. VICTOR E. MACAPAGAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For a tenancy relationship to exist, the following requisites must be established: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvests. All these factors must concur to establish the juridical relationship of tenancy.[12] Conversely, the absence of any of the requisites negates the existence of a tenancy relationship.
	GR NO. 168438 2006-08-28	SPS. FRANCISCO G. TUAZON* AND RUTH A. TUAZON v. VICENTE G. TUAZON PUNO, J.
Even the documentary evidence on record the respective certifications issued by the MARO and BARC officers do not constitute proof that petitioner Ruth is a tenant of the subject land.[11] It is settled that the findings of or certifications issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative in a given locality concerning the presence or absence of a tenancy relationship between the contending parties are merely preliminary or provisional, not binding upon the courts,[12] and could be overturned by a showing of evidence to the contrary. The appellate court correctly observed, viz.:x x x. In fact, we even entertain doubts about their competence as evidence of tenancy status in the absence of further evidence that the MARO and BARC officers who made the certification investigated Ruth's status and saw for themselves or knew for a fact that Ruth personally cultivated the land and undertook the activities required from a tenant.[13]
	GR NO. 144071 2005-08-25	SPS. ALEJANDRO A. JOSON AND LOURDES SAMSON v. REYNALDO MENDOZA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To add, whether respondents were actual tillers is a question of fact. Petitioners have not shown that their case falls under any of the recognized exceptions to the ironclad rule that only questions of law may be raised before this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[23]
	GR No. 146501 2003-08-28	FLORDELIZA RIVERA v. GREGORIA SANTIAGO PANGANIBAN, J.
Fifth, no adequate proof was presented to show the personal cultivation of the property on the part of respondents. Mere allegation of tilling the land without sufficient proof does not amount to personal cultivation. The law is explicit in requiring the tenant and his immediate family to work on the land.[47] He cannot hire many persons, other than on an occasional or a temporary basis, to help in the cultivation.[48]
	GR No. 47013 2000-02-17	ANDRES LAO v. CA PURISIMA, J.
Petitioner Corporation also opposes for being conjectural, the award of P150,000.00 in Civil Case No. 4452, representing actual damages for loss of earnings. True, damages cannot be presumed or premised on conjecture or even logic. A party is entitled to adequate compensation only for duly substantiated pecuniary loss actually suffered by him or her.[67] In this case, however, the trial court correctly found that an award for actual damages was justified because several months before their contract of agency was due to expire in 1969, the petitioner Corporation replaced Lao with Ngo Kheng as sales agent for the areas of Leyte and Samar. This, despite the fact that they had already agreed that Lao would continue to act as the corporation's sales agent provided that he would reduce his accountability to P200,000.00, the amount covered by his bond, and engaged the services of an independent accounting firm to do an audit to establish Lao's true liability. Due to his ouster as sales agent, Lao failed to realize a net income from his sales agency in the amount of P30,000.00 a year.