Scribd
Upload
269 views1 page

Isidro V CA

1. The petitioner was allowed to occupy and use a swampy portion of private land to operate a fishpond without paying rent. 2. The landowner demanded the petitioner vacate the land, but the petitioner refused, claiming he invested in converting it to a fishpond. 3. The court ruled that while the land was now agricultural due to the fishpond, the petitioner was not actually a tenant and did not have rights to the land, as he did not have a formal agreement or pay rent to the landowner.

Uploaded by

bhieng062002
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
269 views1 page

Isidro V CA

1. The petitioner was allowed to occupy and use a swampy portion of private land to operate a fishpond without paying rent. 2. The landowner demanded the petitioner vacate the land, but the petitioner refused, claiming he invested in converting it to a fishpond. 3. The court ruled that while the land was now agricultural due to the fishpond, the petitioner was not actually a tenant and did not have rights to the land, as he did not have a formal agreement or pay rent to the landowner.

Uploaded by

bhieng062002
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TITLE: ISIDRO, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. FACTS: Private respondent Natividad Gutierrez is the owner of a parcel of land.

Aniceta Garcia, sister of private respondent and also the overseer of the latter, allowed petitioner Remigio Isidro to occupy the swampy portion of the abovementioned land, consisting of one (1) hectare, in order to augment his (petitioner's) income to meet his family's needs. The occupancy of a portion of said land was subject top the condition that petitioner would vacate the land upon demand. Petitioner occupied the land without paying any rental and converted the same into a fishpond. Private respondent through the overseer demanded from petitioner the return of the land, but the latter refused to vacate and return possession of said land, claiming that he had spent effort and invested capital in converting the same into a fishpond.A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by private respondent against petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court. Petitioner set up the following defenses: (a) that the complaint was triggered by his refusal to increase his lease rental; (b) the subject land is a fishpond and therefore is agricultural land; and (c) that lack of formal demand to vacate exposes the complaint to dismissal for insufficiency of cause of action. Based on an ocular inspection of the subject land, the trial court found that the land in question is a fishpond and, thus, the said trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the land is agricultural and therefore the dispute over it is agrarian which is under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of agrarian relations as provided in Sec. 12(a) of Republic Act No. 946 (now embodied in the Revised Rules of Procedure of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. ISSUE/s: 1. Whether or not the subject fishponds are classified as agricultural lands 2. Whether or not being an agricultural land the same is governed by our tenancy laws RULING: It is irrefutable in the case at bar that the subject land which used to be an idle, swampy land was converted by the petitioner into a fishpond. And it is settled that a fishpond is an agricultural land. An agricultural land refers to the land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in Republic Act No. 6657 and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. Republic Act No. 6657 defines agricultural activity as the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities, and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by persons whether natural or judicial. But a case involving an agricultural land does not automatically make such case an agrarian dispute upon which the DARAB has jurisdiction. The mere fact that the land is agricultural does not ipso facto make the possessor an agricultural lessee of tenant. The law provides for conditions or requisites before he can qualify as one and the land being agricultural is only one of them. The law states that an agrarian dispute must be a controversy relating to a tenurial arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture. And as previously mentioned, such arrangement may be leasehold, tenancy or stewardship.Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and their written agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even more important. The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is a sharing of harvests between the parties. All these 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. Unless a person establishes his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the government under existing tenancy laws (Caballes v. DAR, et al., G.R. No. 78214, December 5, 1988).

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