Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDMUNDO BENAVIDEZ v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 143365 2008-12-04	GENEROSO SALIGUMBA v. MONICA PALANOG CARPIO, J.
It is the duty of counsel for the deceased to inform the court of the death of his client. The failure of counsel to comply with his duty under Section 16 to inform the court of the death of his client and the non-substitution of such party will not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment thereon if the action survives the death of such party. The decision rendered shall bind the party's successor-in-interest.[21]
	GR No. 148606 2008-06-30	CHARLES LIMBAUAN v. FAUSTINO ACOSTA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is well settled that the failure of counsel to comply with his duty under Section 16 to inform the court of the death of his client and no substitution of such party is effected, will not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment thereon if the action survives the death of such party. Moreover, the decision rendered shall bind his successor-in-interest.[20] The instant action for unlawful detainer, like any action for recovery of real property, is a real action and as such survives the death of Faustino Acosta. His heirs have taken his place and now represent his interests in the instant petition.[21] Hence, the present case cannot be rendered moot despite the death of respondent.
	GR NO. 170346 2007-03-12	HEIRS OF NICOLAS JUGALBOT v. CA
As clearly laid down in Qua v. Court of Appeals[12] and subsequently in Benavidez v. Court of Appeals,[13] the doctrine is well-settled that the allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question does not automatically make the case an agrarian dispute. It is necessary to first establish the existence of a tenancy relationship between the party litigants. The following essential requisites must concur in order to establish a tenancy relationship: (a) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (b) the subject matter is agricultural land; (c) there is consent; (d) the purpose is agricultural production; (e) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (f) there is a sharing of harvests between the parties.[14]
	GR NO. 166664 2005-10-20	DOMINGO C. SUAREZ v. LEO B. SAUL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In this regard, respondents should have filed the instant case before the regular courts and not the DARAB considering that the only act complained of by respondents is TADI's alleged intrusion into the subject land. Thus, respondents' cause of action is actually one for forcible entry. The allegation that they were deprived of their landholdings due to the grower's contract will not automatically make the case an agrarian dispute that would call for the application of tenancy laws and the assumption of jurisdiction by the DARAB.[28]
	GR No. 139561 2003-06-10	SPS. FEDERICO ATUEL AND SARAH ATUEL AND SPS. GEORGE GALDIANO AND ELIADA GALDIANO v. SPS. BERNABE VALDEZ AND CONCHITA VALDEZ CARPIO, J.
xxx This is an action for recovery of the right to posses and is a plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding in a regional trial court to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of the title. Accion publiciana or plenaria de posesion is also used to refer to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. In such case, the regional trial court has jurisdiction. xxx[26] For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over the case, there must exist a tenancy relations between the parties.[27] This Court held in Morta,[28] that in order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it is essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: xxx 1) that 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. xxx[29] (Emphasis supplied) Emphasizing the DARAB's jurisdiction, this Court held in Hon. Antonio M. Nuesa, et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.,[30] that:
	GR No. 122363 2003-04-29	VICTOR G. VALENCIA v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
This conclusion espoused by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform is arbitrary and unfounded. The following essential requisites must concur in order to establish a tenancy relationship:[36] (a) the parties being landowner and tenant; (b) the subject matter is agricultural land; (c) there is consent by the landowner; (d) the purpose is agricultural production; (e) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and, (f) there is sharing of harvests between the parties. An allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question does not make the case an agrarian dispute.[37] Claims that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. The elements of tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle the claimant to security of tenure.[38]