Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Caballes Vs Dar GR NO. 78214 I DEC. 5, 19888: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Gen Cabrillas

    Copyright:

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

    Caballes Vs Dar GR NO. 78214 I DEC. 5, 19888: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Gen Cabrillas
    13 views2 pages

    Original Title

    1.-PART-VII-AGSL-CABALLES-VS-DAR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

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

    Caballes Vs Dar GR NO. 78214 I DEC. 5, 19888: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Gen Cabrillas

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CABALLES VS DAR

    GR NO. 78214 I DEC. 5, 19888

    FACTS :

    This is a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of an Order issued by public respondent
    Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through its then Secretary, the Hon. Heherson Alvarez, finding
    the existence of a tenancy relationship between the herein petitioner and the private respondent. The
    landholding subject of the controversy, which consists of only sixty (60) square meters was acquired by
    the spouses Arturo and Yolanda Caballes (petitioner), by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 24,
    1978 executed by Andrea Alicaba Millenes. This landholding is part of Lot No. 3109-C, which has a total
    area of about 500 square meters, situated at Lawa-an, Talisay, Cebu.

    In 1975, before the sale in favor of the Caballes spouses, private respondent Bienvenido Abajon
    constructed his house on a portion of the said landholding, paying a monthly rental of ₱2.00 to the
    owner, Andrea Millenes. The landowner likewise allowed Abajon to plant on a portion of the land,
    agreeing that the produce thereof would be shared by both on a fifty-fifty basis. Abajon planted corn
    and bananas on the landholding. For four years, he paid the ₱2.00 rental for the lot occupied by his
    house, and delivered 50% of the produce to the owner.

    As the property was sold, the new owners asked Abajon to vacate the premises, saying they
    needed the property, but Abajon refused. On April 1, 1982, Yolanda Caballes, executed an Affidavit
    stating that immediately after she reprimanded Abajon for harvesting bananas and jackfruit from the
    property without her knowledge, the latter, with malicious and ill intent, cut down the banana plants on
    the property worth about ₱50.00. A criminal case for malicious mischief was filed against Abajon.
    (Obviously, all the planting on the property, including that of the banana plants, had been done by
    Abajon). Upon motion of the respondent in open court, the trial court ordered the referral of the case
    to the Regional Office of the Public Respondent for a preliminary determination of the relationship
    between the parties. The Regional Director of DAR held that there is the existence of a tenancy
    relationship between the parties. On appeal by the petitioner, the Secretary of DAR, reversed the
    decision of the Regional Director. Upon motion for reconsideration filed by the private respondent, the
    New DAR Secretary sets aside the previous decision and finds the existence of a tenancy relationship
    between the parties.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not there is an existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties.

    RULING:

    There is none. The Higher Court laid down the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship. All
    requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties. The absence of
    one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de
    jure tenant. The fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. This does not
    automatically make the tiller-sharer a tenant thereof especially when the area tilled is only 60 square
    meters and located in an urban area and in the heart of an industrial or commercial zone. Tenancy
    status arises only if an occupant of a parcel of land has been given its possession for the primary
    purpose of agricultural production. The circumstances of this case indicate that the private respondent's
    status is more of a caretaker who was allowed by the owner out of benevolence or compassion to live in
    the premises and to have a garden of some sort rather than a tenant. Agricultural production as the
    primary purpose being absent in the arrangement is a clear proof that the private respondent was never
    a tenant.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy