Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF ENRIQUE TAN v. PROMULGATED: REYNALDA POLLESCAS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 176091 2011-08-24	RENE ANTONIO v. GREGORIO MANAHAN PEREZ, J.
An agricultural leasehold relationship is said to exist upon the concurrence of the following essential requisites: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) the subject matter of the relationship is 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.[21] Once the tenancy relationship is established, the tenant is entitled to security of tenure and cannot be ejected by the landlord unless ordered by the court for causes provided by law.[22] In recognition and protection of the tenant's right to security of tenure, the burden of proof is upon the agricultural lessor to show the existence of the lawful causes for ejectment[23] or dispossession under Section 36 of Republic Act No. 3844 which provides as follows: Section 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. -- Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:
	GR No. 164340 2008-11-28	OTILIA STA. ANA v. SPS. LEON G. CARPO AND AURORA CARPO NACHURA, J.
Under Section 37 of Republic Act No. 3844,[40] as amended, coupled with the fact that the respondents are the complainants themselves, the burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of the petitioner as an agricultural lessee rests upon the respondents as agricultural lessors.[41] This proceeds from the principle that a tenancy relationship, once established, entitles the tenant to security of tenure. Petitioner can only be ejected from the agricultural landholding on grounds provided by law.[42] Section 36 of the same law pertinently provides:Sec. 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. -- Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:
	GR NO. 140796 2006-06-30	PURIFICACION PEREZ-ROSARIO v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As correctly noted by the DARAB, it appears that the juridical relationship of the parties is still governed by agricultural share tenancy. The relationship should be converted into a leasehold. On August 8, 1963, R.A. No. 3844, the Agricultural Land Reform Code, abolished and outlawed share tenancy and put in its stead the agricultural leasehold system. On September 10, 1971, R.A. No. 6389, amending R.A. No. 3844, declared share tenancy relationships as contrary to public policy. R.A. No. 3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389, is the governing statute in this case.[39] Petitioners filed their complaint on November 24, 1988 or long after the approval of R.A. No. 6389 but before R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Notably, R.A. No. 6657 only expressly repealed Section 35 of R.A. No. 3844.[40]