Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CESAR MATEO v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175485 2011-07-27	CASIMIRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RENATO L. MATEO BERSAMIN, J.
On June 6, 1991, CDC brought an action for unlawful detainer in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Las Piñas City against the respondent's siblings, namely: Cesar, Candido, Jr., and Leonardo, and the other occupants of the property. Therein, the defendants maintained that the MeTC did not have jurisdiction over the action because the land was classified as agricultural; that the jurisdiction belonged to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB); that they had been in continuous and open possession of the land even before World War II and had presumed themselves entitled to a government grant of the land; and that CDC's title was invalid, considering that the land had been registered before its being declared alienable. [3]
	GR NO. 149764 2006-11-22	PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION v. ENRIQUE GUTIERREZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the recent case of Mateo v. Court of Appeals,[10] the Court held that 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 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.[11] These requisites for the jurisdiction of the DARAB have been reiterated by the Court in a number of cases.[12]
	GR NO. 144652 2005-12-16	ARCADIO B. DANDOY v. ZACARIAS TONGSON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it is necessary that the following indispensable elements are established: 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.[18] It is not enough that these requisites are alleged; these requisites must be shown in order to divest the regular court of its jurisdiction in proceedings lawfully began before it.[19]
	GR NO. 166664 2005-10-20	DOMINGO C. SUAREZ v. LEO B. SAUL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In order for a dispute to fall under the jurisdiction of the DARAB, the controversy must relate 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."[29] There must be a tenancy relationship between the party litigants for the DARAB to validly take cognizance of a controversy.[30]