Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF RAFAEL MAGPILY v. HERMINIGILDO DE JESUS

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 195203 2015-04-20	ANTONIO PAGARIGAN v. ANGELITA YAGUE BRION, J.
We have consistently held that occupancy and cultivation of an agricultural land, no matter hew long, will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant.[29] Independent and concrete evidence is necessary to prove personal cultivation, sharing of harvest, or consent of the landowner.[30] We emphasize that the presence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed;[31] the elements for its existence are explicit in law and cannot be done away with by mere conjectures.[32] 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.[33]
	GR No. 192270 2015-01-26	IRENE D. OFILADA v. SPS. RUBEN ANDAL AND MIRAFLOR ANDAL DEL CASTILLO, J.
Anent the proof of sharing of harvest, what the spouses Andal merely presented was a single receipt dated July 27, 2005 representing Irene's 'share' in the harvest. This even militates against the spouses Andal's claim of tenancy considering that they did not present the receipts for the alleged sharing system prior to 2005 or from 1997, the year when Irene purchased the land. Notably, the receipt they submitted is dated July 27, 2005 or just a few months before the filing of the complaint. To the Court's mind, such act of the spouses Andal to give Irene a share is a mere afterthought, the same having been done during the time that Irene was already making serious demands for them to account for the produce of the lands and vacate the properties. Be that as it may, the Court stresses "that it is not unusual for a landowner to receive the produce of the land from a caretaker who sows thereon. The fact of receipt, without an agreed system of sharing, does not ipso facto create a tenancy."[47]
	GR No. 172287 2010-01-15	WELFREDO CENEZE v. FELICIANA RAMOS NACHURA, J.
In resolving this petition, the Court is guided by the principle that tenancy is not purely a factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land; it is also a legal relationship.[11] A tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. There must be evidence to prove the presence of all its indispensable elements, to wit: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent by the landowner; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of the harvest.[12] The absence of one element does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, its cultivator or planter, a de jure tenant.[13]
	GR No. 184285 2009-09-25	RODOLFO 'RUDY' CANLAS v. ILUMINADA TUBIL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The ruling cited by the Court of Appeals in Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals,[21] i.e., that jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the complaint for ejectment such that when the complaint fails to faithfully aver facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how entry was effected, or how and when dispossession started, the remedy should either be an accion publiciana or an accion reinvindicatoria in the proper regional trial court,[22] finds no application in the instant case. In Sarmiento, the complaint did not characterize the entry into the land as legal or illegal. It was also not alleged that dispossession was effected through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to make out a case of forcible entry, nor was there a contract, express or implied, as would qualify the case as unlawful detainer.[23] Contrarily, the complaint in this case specifically alleged that possession of the petitioners was by tolerance. The rule is that possession by tolerance is lawful, but such possession becomes unlawful upon demand to vacate made by the owner and the possessor by tolerance refuses to comply with such demand.[24] In Sarmiento, the claim that possession of the land was by tolerance was a mere afterthought, raised only in subsequent pleadings but not in the complaint.[25]
	GR No. 127965 2009-01-20	FRANCISCO SALAZAR v. REYNALDO DE LEON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
"Agrarian dispute" is defined in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6657 as any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements - whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise - over lands devoted to agriculture; including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under Republic Act No. 6657 and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee. It refers to any controversy relating to, inter alia, tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture.[37]
	GR No. 172146 2008-07-30	CORNES v. LEAL REALTY CENTRUM CO. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It must be initially emphasized that for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties.[25] We stress that a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed.[26] In order for a tenancy agreement to arise, it is essential to establish all its indispensable elements, viz: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[27]
	GR No. 173415 2008-03-28	Mariano Tanenglian Petitioner v. Silvestre Lorenzo CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Heirs of Rafael Magpily v. De Jesus, [28] tenants are defined as persons who - in themselves and with the aid available from within their immediate farm householders - they cultivate the lands belonging to or possessed by another with the latter's consent; for purposes of production, they share the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or pay to the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce of money or both under the leasehold tenancy system.
	GR NO. 140798 2006-09-19	MARCELITO D. QUEVADA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
"[P]ossession by tolerance is lawful, but such possession becomes unlawful when the possessor by tolerance refuses to vacate upon demand made by the owner. A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand, failing which, a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy."[12] "The situation is not much different from that of a tenant whose lease expires but who continues in occupancy by tolerance of the owner, in which case there is deemed to be an unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession as of the date of the demand to vacate."[13]