Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 429 views

    Adriano Vs Tanco Agra

    Uploaded by

    Carla Virtucio
    The case involves a dispute over land ownership between Vicente, who claims to be a tenant, and the Tanco family who owns the land. Vicente alleges that in 1970, Alice Tanco's husband instituted him as a tenant to care for their mango plantation. He claims to have performed farm work and lived on the land since then. The Tanco family denies this and claims Vicente was merely a farm worker hired by Alice. The lower courts ruled in favor of Vicente's tenancy claim but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirms the CA's ruling, finding that the essential elements of consent and profit sharing between the parties, necessary to establish a tenancy relationship, were not sufficiently proven.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Adriano Vs Tanco Agra

    Uploaded by

    Carla Virtucio
    429 views2 pages
    The case involves a dispute over land ownership between Vicente, who claims to be a tenant, and the Tanco family who owns the land. Vicente alleges that in 1970, Alice Tanco's husband instituted him as a tenant to care for their mango plantation. He claims to have performed farm work and lived on the land since then. The Tanco family denies this and claims Vicente was merely a farm worker hired by Alice. The lower courts ruled in favor of Vicente's tenancy claim but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirms the CA's ruling, finding that the essential elements of consent and profit sharing between the parties, necessary to establish a tenancy relationship, were not sufficiently proven.

    Original Description:

    agra law

    Original Title

    Adriano vs Tanco Agra

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involves a dispute over land ownership between Vicente, who claims to be a tenant, and the Tanco family who owns the land. Vicente alleges that in 1970, Alice Tanco's husband instituted him as a tenant to care for their mango plantation. He claims to have performed farm work and lived on the land since then. The Tanco family denies this and claims Vicente was merely a farm worker hired by Alice. The lower courts ruled in favor of Vicente's tenancy claim but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirms the CA's ruling, finding that the essential elements of consent and profit sharing between the parties, necessary to establish a tenancy relationship, were not sufficiently proven.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    429 views2 pages

    Adriano Vs Tanco Agra

    Uploaded by

    Carla Virtucio
    The case involves a dispute over land ownership between Vicente, who claims to be a tenant, and the Tanco family who owns the land. Vicente alleges that in 1970, Alice Tanco's husband instituted him as a tenant to care for their mango plantation. He claims to have performed farm work and lived on the land since then. The Tanco family denies this and claims Vicente was merely a farm worker hired by Alice. The lower courts ruled in favor of Vicente's tenancy claim but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirms the CA's ruling, finding that the essential elements of consent and profit sharing between the parties, necessary to establish a tenancy relationship, were not sufficiently proven.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ADRIANO vs.

    TANCO, GR 168164

    FACTS:

    Respondent Alice Tanco (Alice) purchased a parcel of land consisting of 28.4692 hectares
    located in Bulacan. The land was devoted to mango plantation. Later on, it was partitioned
    among the respondents (Alice and her three children, namely, Geraldine, Ronald, and Patrick),
    each receiving 7 hectares, except Alice who got an extra 0.4692 hectare.

    Controversy arose when Alice sent letter to petitioner Vicente informing him that subject
    landholding is not covered by CARP and asked him to vacate the property as soon as
    possible. Seeing the letter as a threat to his peaceful possession of subject farmland which
    might impair his security of tenure as a tenant, Vicente filed before the regional office of
    DARAB a Complaint for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession. He averred that in 1970, the
    husband of Alice, instituted him as tenant-caretaker of the entire mango plantation. Since
    then, he has been performing all phases of farm works, such as clearing, pruning, smudging,
    and spraying of the mango trees. The fruits were then divided equally between them. He also
    alleged that he was allowed to improve and establish his home at the old building left by Ang
    Tibay Shoes located at the middle of the plantation. Presently, he is in actual possession of and
    continues to cultivate the land. Respondents denied having instituted any tenant on their
    property. Insofar as Alice is concerned, respondents asserted that Vicente is not a tenant but a
    mere regular farm worker.

    PARAD rendered a Decision in favor of Vicente. It opined that since Vicente was performing
    functions more than just a mere caretaker and was even allowed to live in subject landholding
    with his family, he is therefore a tenant. Thus, respondents appealed to the DARAB which
    affirmed the ruling of the PARAD. It held that since the landholding is an agricultural land, that
    respondents allowed Vicente to take care of the mango trees, and that they divided the fruits
    equally between them, then an implied tenancy was created. The case was then elevated to CA
    via a Petition for Review. They contended, among others, that the essential elements of
    tenancy relationship are wanting in the instant controversy. They claimed that their property is
    not an agricultural land, but lies within a mineralized area; Alice hired Vicente as a caretaker
    and, therefore, the nature of their relationship is that of an employer-employee relationship;
    and, there is no proof that the parties share in the harvest. The CA rendered a Decision in
    respondents’ favor. Hence, the instant petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not petitioner is a bonafide tenant-farmer.

    HELD:

    Laws which have for their object the preservation and maintenance of social justice are not only
    meant to favor the poor and the underprivileged. They apply with equal force to those who,
    notwithstanding their more comfortable position in life, are equally deserving of protection
    from the courts. Social justice is not a license to trample on the rights of the rich in the guise of
    defending the poor, where no act of injustice or abuse is being committed against them.

    The findings of the agrarian tribunals that tenancy relationship exists are not supported by
    substantial evidence.

    Tenancy relationship is a juridical tie which arises between a landowner and a tenant once they
    agree, expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly the cultivation of a land belonging to the
    landowner, as a result of which relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working
    on and cultivating the land.

    The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and allegations that one is a
    tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. For tenancy relationship to exist, the
    following essential requisites must be present: (1) the parties are the landowner and the
    tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties; (4)
    the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and, (6)
    there is sharing of the harvests between the parties. All the requisites must concur in order to
    establish the existence of tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or more requisites is
    fatal.

    After a thorough evaluation of the records of this case, we affirm the findings of the CA that the
    essential requisites of consent and sharing are lacking.

    You might also like