Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 118 views

    Ceneze vs. Ramos

    Uploaded by

    Diana Boado
    1. The case involved a dispute over whether the petitioner, Ceneze, had established himself as a bona fide tenant of two parcels of agricultural land owned by the respondent, Ramos. 2. While the Provincial Adjudicator and DARAB initially ruled in favor of Ceneze, the CA dismissed the complaint, finding that Ceneze had failed to prove the existence of a tenancy relationship with Ramos. 3. The SC affirmed the CA's ruling, holding that Ceneze did not provide substantial evidence to prove all the necessary elements of a tenancy relationship, particularly the elements of consent by the landowner and sharing of harvests between the parties.

    Copyright:

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

    Ceneze vs. Ramos

    Uploaded by

    Diana Boado
    118 views3 pages
    1. The case involved a dispute over whether the petitioner, Ceneze, had established himself as a bona fide tenant of two parcels of agricultural land owned by the respondent, Ramos. 2. While the Provincial Adjudicator and DARAB initially ruled in favor of Ceneze, the CA dismissed the complaint, finding that Ceneze had failed to prove the existence of a tenancy relationship with Ramos. 3. The SC affirmed the CA's ruling, holding that Ceneze did not provide substantial evidence to prove all the necessary elements of a tenancy relationship, particularly the elements of consent by the landowner and sharing of harvests between the parties.

    Original Title

    Ceneze vs. Ramos.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The case involved a dispute over whether the petitioner, Ceneze, had established himself as a bona fide tenant of two parcels of agricultural land owned by the respondent, Ramos. 2. While the Provincial Adjudicator and DARAB initially ruled in favor of Ceneze, the CA dismissed the complaint, finding that Ceneze had failed to prove the existence of a tenancy relationship with Ramos. 3. The SC affirmed the CA's ruling, holding that Ceneze did not provide substantial evidence to prove all the necessary elements of a tenancy relationship, particularly the elements of consent by the landowner and sharing of harvests between the parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    118 views3 pages

    Ceneze vs. Ramos

    Uploaded by

    Diana Boado
    1. The case involved a dispute over whether the petitioner, Ceneze, had established himself as a bona fide tenant of two parcels of agricultural land owned by the respondent, Ramos. 2. While the Provincial Adjudicator and DARAB initially ruled in favor of Ceneze, the CA dismissed the complaint, finding that Ceneze had failed to prove the existence of a tenancy relationship with Ramos. 3. The SC affirmed the CA's ruling, holding that Ceneze did not provide substantial evidence to prove all the necessary elements of a tenancy relationship, particularly the elements of consent by the landowner and sharing of harvests between the parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    CENEZE VS.

    RAMOS
    GR No. 172287; January 15, 2010
    Nature of the case
    Petition for review on certiorari of the CA Decision and Resolution, which dismissed
    petitioners complaint before the Provincial Adjudicator.
    Facts:
    1. Ceneze filed an action for declaration as bona fide tenant-lessee of two parcels of
    agricultural land owned by respondent Feliciana Ramos, alleging that in 1981,
    Julian Ceneze, Sr. (Julian, Sr.), petitioners father, transferred his tenurial rights
    over the landholding to him with the consent and approval of respondent and that,
    since then, petitioner had been in actual and peaceful possession of the
    landholding until April 12, 1991, when respondent forcibly entered and cultivated
    the land for the purpose of dispossessing petitioner of his right as tenant.
    2. Respondent denied that a tenancy relationship existed, arguing that she had never
    instituted petitioner as a tenant in any of her landholdings. She averred that
    petitioner had never been in possession of the landholding, but admitted that it
    was Julian, Sr. who was the tenant of the landholding. When Julian, Sr. migrated
    to USA in 1985, respondent allowed Julian, Sr.s wife to cultivate the land, but she
    herself migrated to the USA in June 1988. Respondent later allowed Julian, Sr.s
    son, Julian Ceneze, Jr. (Julian, Jr.), to cultivate the landholding, but he likewise
    migrated to the USA in 1991 without informing respondent. From then on, she
    took possession of the landholding, cultivated it and appropriated for herself the
    harvest therefrom.
    Provincial Adjudicator Ruling
    Decision in favor of petitioner, declaring Ceneze a bona fide tenant of the subject
    landholding.

    DARAB Ruling
    Affirmed the Provincial Adjudicators ruling
    CA Ruling
    Resolved the petition in favor of respondent landowner and dismissed petitioners
    complaint. MR denied.

    Issue
    Whether or not petitioner failed to establish that he had a tenancy relationship with
    respondent

    SC Ruling
    Yes.
    Tenancy is not purely a factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does
    upon the land; it is also a legal relationship. A tenancy relationship cannot be
    presumed. There must be evidence to prove the presence of all its indispensable
    elements, to wit: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is
    agricultural land; (3) there is consent by the landowner; (4) the purpose is agricultural
    production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of the harvest. [12]
    The absence of one element does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, its
    cultivator or planter, a de jure tenant.[13]
    Petitioner submitted a Certification issued by the BARC Chairman attesting that the
    former is a tenant of the landholding, but such certification is not binding on this
    Court. The certification or findings of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform (or of an
    authorized representative) concerning the presence or the absence of a tenancy
    relationship between the contending parties are merely preliminary or provisional in
    character.
    To prove a tenancy relationship, the requisite quantum of evidence is substantial
    evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
    support a conclusion.The Certification of the BARC Chairman and the affidavits of
    Julian, Sr. and of the tenants of the adjacent landholdings certainly do not suffice. By
    themselves, they do not show that the elements of consent of the landowner and of
    sharing of harvests are present.
    To establish consent, petitioner presented the Affidavit executed by Julian, Sr.However,
    the affidavit which was not notarized cannot be given credence considering that it was
    not authenticated.
    The other tenants Joint Affidavit, likewise, fails to prove that petitioner is a tenant,
    more particularly, that there was personal cultivation and sharing of the harvest. In
    this affidavit, the affiants stated that they helped hand in hand with [petitioner] in
    harvesting and threshing our palay products and helped him in delivering the share of
    [respondent] every year. The affidavit is ambiguously worded, considering that the
    affiants are also tenant-lessees of respondent and they could be referring to their own
    harvest.
    The fact alone of working on a landholding does not give rise to a presumption of the
    existence of agricultural tenancy.

    To prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other evidence must be presented,


    because self-serving statements are inadequate. In this case, petitioner failed to
    present a receipt for respondents share in the harvest, or any other solid evidence
    proving that there was a sharing of harvest.

    You might also like