This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court had once ruled that self-serving statements regarding tenancy relations could not establish the claimed relationship.[12] The fact alone of working on another's landholding does not raise a presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy.[13] Substantial evidence entails not only the presence of a mere scintilla of evidence in order that the fact of sharing can be established; there must also be concrete evidence on record that is adequate to prove the element of sharing.[14] In fact, this Court likewise ruled that to prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other evidence must be presented; self-serving statements are deemed inadequate.[15] | |||||
|
2003-04-29 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In Berenguer, Jr. v. Court of Appeals this Court ruled that the respondents' self-serving statements regarding their tenancy relations could not establish the claimed relationship.[43] The fact alone of working on another's landholding does not raise a presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy.[44] Substantial evidence does not only entail the presence of a mere scintilla of evidence in order that the fact of sharing can be established; there must be concrete evidence on record adequate enough to prove the element of sharing.[45] Bejasa v. Court of Appeals similarly ruled that to prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other evidence must be presented as self-serving statements are deemed inadequate.[46] | |||||