Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reward Your Curiosity: Ceneze Vs Ramos Digest
Reward Your Curiosity: Ceneze Vs Ramos Digest
Reward Your Curiosity: Ceneze Vs Ramos Digest
0 0 RELATED TITLES
40 views
Home
Ceneze vs Ramos Digest
Saved Uploaded by Ar Line on Sep 08, 2014
Magazines
Documents
8. Welfredo Ceneze vs Feliciana Ramos
GR No. 172287
Respondent denied that a tenancy relationship existed between her and petitioner, asserting 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. After Julian, Sr., his wife, and his son Julian migrated to the USA, she reported on April
8, 1991 to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Manaoag, Pangasinan, the abandonment of
the landholding by Julian, Sr., his wife and his son, Julian, Jr.
On December 19, 1997, the Provincial Adjudicator favored petitioner finding that the latter is a bonafide
tenent-lessee of the landholding. DARAB affirmed the decision.
Respondent elevated the case to the CA through a petition for review for which CA resolved the petition
in favor of respondent landowner and dismissed petitioner’s complaint. Likewise, petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Hence this petition for review was filed.
You're reading a preview. Unlock full access with a free trial. Download
Page 2 is not shown in this preview. With Free
Trial
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; hence, such ce rtification does not bind the judiciary.
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 show that the elements of consent of the landowner and of sharing of
harvests are present.
In any case, the fact alone of working on a landholding does not give rise to a presumption of the
existence of agricultural
The certification tenancy.
or findings Substantial
of the Secretaryevidence requires
of Agrarian more
Reform (orthan a mere
of an scintillarepresentative)
authorized of evidence in
order that the
concerning thefact of sharing
presence canabsence
or the be established; thererelationship
of a tenancy must be concrete evidence
between on recordparties
the contending adequate
are
enough to prove the
merely preliminary element of
or provisional sharing. Inhence,
in character; this case, petitioner
such ce rtification failed to bind
does not present a receipt for
the judiciary.
respondent’s share in the harvest, or any other solid evidence proving that there was a sharing of
harvest.
You're Reading a Preview
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
Petitioner is of
Certification notthe
a de Unlock
tenant
jureChairman
BARC
full access
entitled securitywith
and thetoaffidavits
a free
tenure.
of Julian,
trial.
There
Sr. being
and of the no tenancy
tenants relationship
of the adjacent
between the parties,
landholdings certainlythe
doDARAB did not
not show thathave
the jurisdiction
elements ofover the case.
consent of the landowner and of sharing of
In any case, the fact alone of working on a landholding does not give rise to a presumption of the
existence of agricultural tenancy. Substantial evidence requires more than 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. In this case, petitioner failed to present a receipt for
respondent’s share in the harvest, or any other solid evidence proving that there was a sharing of
harvest.
Petitioner is not a de jure tenant entitled to security of tenure. There being no tenancy relationship
between the parties, the DARAB did not have jurisdiction over the case.
Related Interests
Contact Us Publishers
Invite Friends
Gifts
Copyright © 2019 Scribd Inc. . Browse Books . Site Directory . Site Language: English