Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Leopoldo Jeremias Vs Estate of Mariano

    Uploaded by

    Gee Lorin
    1) Irene Mariano owned two parcels of land totaling over 27 hectares that were placed under an agrarian reform program. The land was subdivided and Santiago Jeremias was one of 40 tenant beneficiaries. 2) After Irene's death, her heirs disputed the claims of Leopoldo Jeremias and Ruben Viñas to be tenants with rights to the land. 3) The Court ruled that neither Leopoldo nor Ruben provided sufficient evidence to establish a legitimate tenancy relationship with Irene, as defined under law, and therefore they did not have security of tenure to the disputed portions of land.

    Copyright:

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

    Leopoldo Jeremias Vs Estate of Mariano

    Uploaded by

    Gee Lorin
    34 views1 page
    1) Irene Mariano owned two parcels of land totaling over 27 hectares that were placed under an agrarian reform program. The land was subdivided and Santiago Jeremias was one of 40 tenant beneficiaries. 2) After Irene's death, her heirs disputed the claims of Leopoldo Jeremias and Ruben Viñas to be tenants with rights to the land. 3) The Court ruled that neither Leopoldo nor Ruben provided sufficient evidence to establish a legitimate tenancy relationship with Irene, as defined under law, and therefore they did not have security of tenure to the disputed portions of land.

    Original Title

    Leopoldo Jeremias vs Estate of Mariano.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) Irene Mariano owned two parcels of land totaling over 27 hectares that were placed under an agrarian reform program. The land was subdivided and Santiago Jeremias was one of 40 tenant beneficiaries. 2) After Irene's death, her heirs disputed the claims of Leopoldo Jeremias and Ruben Viñas to be tenants with rights to the land. 3) The Court ruled that neither Leopoldo nor Ruben provided sufficient evidence to establish a legitimate tenancy relationship with Irene, as defined under law, and therefore they did not have security of tenure to the disputed portions of land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    34 views1 page

    Leopoldo Jeremias Vs Estate of Mariano

    Uploaded by

    Gee Lorin
    1) Irene Mariano owned two parcels of land totaling over 27 hectares that were placed under an agrarian reform program. The land was subdivided and Santiago Jeremias was one of 40 tenant beneficiaries. 2) After Irene's death, her heirs disputed the claims of Leopoldo Jeremias and Ruben Viñas to be tenants with rights to the land. 3) The Court ruled that neither Leopoldo nor Ruben provided sufficient evidence to establish a legitimate tenancy relationship with Irene, as defined under law, and therefore they did not have security of tenure to the disputed portions of land.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    174649 September 26, 2008


    Leopoldo Jeremias vs. Estate of Mariano
    Chico-Nazario, J.

    Facts:
    Irene P. Mariano (Irene), a widow, owned two parcels of land with an aggregate area of a little
    more than 27 hectares. In 1972, the 2 parcels of land were placed under the Operation Land Transfer
    program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27. The tenanted portions of the landholdings were
    subdivided among identified tenant-beneficiaries, and a subdivision plan was made. Santiago Jeremias
    (father of petitioner Leopoldo) was one the 40 tenant beneficiaries. On June 26, 1988, Irene died
    intestate who was succeeded by his two children, Jose P. Mariano and Erlinda M. Villanueva. On 14 May
    1989, Helen Mariano, Jose's wife, allegedly instituted Ruben Viñas (Ruben) as a tenant, through an
    unsigned handwritten letter, despite the estate of the late Irene still unpartitioned and under intestate
    proceedings.
    In 1991, Danilo Mariano was appointed as administrator of the estate of Irene Mariano. He
    lodged before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) separate complaints of ejectment
    and damages against both Ruben Viñas and Leopoldo Jeremias for their refusal to vacate despite oral
    and formal demands. Ruben's basis for saying he was a tenant is the unsigned letter by Helen Mariano,
    while on the other hand, Leopoldo claims that by virtue of succession, he lawfully acquired right to
    cultivate granted by Irene to his father Santiago Jeremias.

    Issue:
    Whether or not Leopoldo Jeremias and Ruben Viñas are tenants of the lands belonging to the
    late Irene Mariano which entitles them to security of tenure.

    Held:
    No. The Court ruled that they are not considered tenants entitle to security of tenure under the
    law. Tenancy relationship arises if all the following essential requisites are present:
    1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
    2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;
    3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship;
    4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;
    5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and
    6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
    Claims by one of the existence tenancy do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. In
    this case, there is no substantial evidence that the petitioners were installed by the owner of the lots in
    question as agricultural tenants on the property. There is, likewise, no evidence that the petitioners
    shared with the landowner the harvest and/or produce from the landholding. Hence, the Court
    reinstated the decision of the PARAD.

    You might also like