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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Manuel Jusayan

    Uploaded by

    james
    The Court resolves whether a lease of agricultural land between the respondent Jorge Sombilla and the predecessor of the petitioners Manuel Jusayan, Alfredo Jusayan, and Michael Jusayan was a civil law lease or an agricultural lease. This is determinative of whether the Regional Trial Court had original exclusive jurisdiction over the action commenced by the predecessor against the respondent. The Regional Trial Court ruled the relationship was one of agency and ordered the respondent to return possession of the land to the petitioners. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this judgment, finding the relationship to be an agricultural lease. The Supreme Court will determine which characterization is correct.

    Copyright:

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

    Manuel Jusayan

    Uploaded by

    james
    25 views2 pages
    The Court resolves whether a lease of agricultural land between the respondent Jorge Sombilla and the predecessor of the petitioners Manuel Jusayan, Alfredo Jusayan, and Michael Jusayan was a civil law lease or an agricultural lease. This is determinative of whether the Regional Trial Court had original exclusive jurisdiction over the action commenced by the predecessor against the respondent. The Regional Trial Court ruled the relationship was one of agency and ordered the respondent to return possession of the land to the petitioners. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this judgment, finding the relationship to be an agricultural lease. The Supreme Court will determine which characterization is correct.

    Original Description:

    LAW 6

    Original Title

    MANUEL JUSAYAN

    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 Court resolves whether a lease of agricultural land between the respondent Jorge Sombilla and the predecessor of the petitioners Manuel Jusayan, Alfredo Jusayan, and Michael Jusayan was a civil law lease or an agricultural lease. This is determinative of whether the Regional Trial Court had original exclusive jurisdiction over the action commenced by the predecessor against the respondent. The Regional Trial Court ruled the relationship was one of agency and ordered the respondent to return possession of the land to the petitioners. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this judgment, finding the relationship to be an agricultural lease. The Supreme Court will determine which characterization is correct.

    Copyright:

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

    Manuel Jusayan

    Uploaded by

    james
    The Court resolves whether a lease of agricultural land between the respondent Jorge Sombilla and the predecessor of the petitioners Manuel Jusayan, Alfredo Jusayan, and Michael Jusayan was a civil law lease or an agricultural lease. This is determinative of whether the Regional Trial Court had original exclusive jurisdiction over the action commenced by the predecessor against the respondent. The Regional Trial Court ruled the relationship was one of agency and ordered the respondent to return possession of the land to the petitioners. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this judgment, finding the relationship to be an agricultural lease. The Supreme Court will determine which characterization is correct.

    Copyright:

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

    MANUEL JUSAYAN, ALFREDO JUSAYAN, AND MICHAEL JUSAYAN Petitioners,

    vs.

    JORGE SOMBILLA, Respondent.

    DECISION

    BERSAMIN, J.:

    The Court resolves whether a lease of agricultural land between the respondent and the predecessor of
    the petitioners was a civil law lease or an agricultural lease. The resolution is determinative of whether
    or not the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had original exclusive jurisdiction over the action commenced by
    the predecessor of the petitioners against the respondent. The Case

    Under review on certiorari is the decision promulgated on October 20, 2003,1 whereby the Court of
    Appeals (CA) reversed the judgment in favor of the petitioners rendered on April 13, 1999 in CAR Case
    No. 17117 entitled Timoteo Jusayan, Manuel Jusayan, Alfredo Jusayan and Michael Jusayan v. Jorge
    Sombillaby the RTC, Branch 30, in Iloilo City.2

    Antecedents

    Wilson Jesena (Wilson) owned four parcels of land situated in New Lucena, Iloilo. On June 20, 1970,
    Wilson entered into an agreement with respondent Jorge Sombilla (Jorge),3 wherein Wilson designated
    Jorge as his agent to supervise the tilling and farming of his riceland in crop year 1970-1971. On August
    20, 1971, before the expiration of the agreement, Wilson sold the four parcels of land to Timoteo
    Jusayan (Timoteo).4 Jorge and Timoteo verbally agreed that Jorge would retain possession of the parcels
    of land and would deliver 110 cavans of palay annually to Timoteo without need for accounting of the
    cultivation expenses provided that Jorge would pay the irrigation fees. From 1971 to 1983, Timoteo and
    Jorge followed the arrangement. In 1975, the parcels of land were transferred in the names of Timoteo’s
    sons, namely; Manuel, Alfredo and Michael (petitioners). In 1984, Timoteo sent several letters to Jorge
    terminating his administration and demanding the return of the possession of the parcels of land.5
    Due to the failure of Jorge to render accounting and to return the possession of the parcels of land
    despite demands, Timoteo filed on June 30, 1986 a complaint for recovery of possession and accounting
    against Jorge in the RTC (CAR Case No. 17117). Following Timoteo’s death on October 4, 1991, the
    petitioners substituted him as the plaintiffs.

    In his answer,6 Jorge asserted that he enjoyed security of tenure as the agricultural lessee of Timoteo;
    and that he could not be dispossessed of his landholding without valid cause.

    Ruling of the RTC

    In its decision rendered on April 13, 1999,7 the RTC upheld the contractual relationship of agency
    between Timoteo and Jorge; and ordered Jorge to deliver the possession of the parcels of land to the
    petitioners.

    Judgment of the CA

    You might also like