0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
45 просмотров1 страница
Rodriguez v Salvador is a case about unlawful detainer. Salvador, the landowner, filed a complaint against Rodriguez to vacate the land. Rodriguez claims they entered the land with consent from Salvador's predecessors to farm the land and share the produce. The court ruled that an agricultural tenancy did not exist since the elements of consent and sharing of the harvest were not sufficiently proven based on the affidavits submitted. Mere occupation or cultivation of land does not make one an agricultural tenant without substantial evidence proving the requisites of tenancy.
Rodriguez v Salvador is a case about unlawful detainer. Salvador, the landowner, filed a complaint against Rodriguez to vacate the land. Rodriguez claims they entered the land with consent from Salvador's predecessors to farm the land and share the produce. The court ruled that an agricultural tenancy did not exist since the elements of consent and sharing of the harvest were not sufficiently proven based on the affidavits submitted. Mere occupation or cultivation of land does not make one an agricultural tenant without substantial evidence proving the requisites of tenancy.
Rodriguez v Salvador is a case about unlawful detainer. Salvador, the landowner, filed a complaint against Rodriguez to vacate the land. Rodriguez claims they entered the land with consent from Salvador's predecessors to farm the land and share the produce. The court ruled that an agricultural tenancy did not exist since the elements of consent and sharing of the harvest were not sufficiently proven based on the affidavits submitted. Mere occupation or cultivation of land does not make one an agricultural tenant without substantial evidence proving the requisites of tenancy.
Facts: Salvador filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Rodriguez. Salvador alleged that she is the owner of a parcel of land, that Rodriguez acquired possession of the subject land by mere tolerance of her predecessors-in-interest; and despite several verbal and written demands Rodriguez refused to vacate. Rodriguez claims that they entered the land with the consent under the agreement that they would devote the property to agricultural production and share the produce with the Salvador siblings.
Issues: WHETHER RODRIGUEZ ARE NOT TENANTS OF THE SUBJECT LAND.
Rulling: Agricultural tenancy relationship does not exist. It exists when 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or lessee; 2) the subject is an agricultural land; 3) there is consent between the parties; 4) the purpose is to bring agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or lessee; and 6) the harvest is shared between landowner and tenant or lessee. The statements in the affidavits presented by the petitioners are not sufficient to prove the existence of an agricultural tenancy. The element of consent and sharing of harvest is lacking. No other evidence was submitted to show that respondent's predecessors-in-interest consented to a tenancy relationship. Self-serving statements will not prove consent of the landowner. Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land will not make the tiller an agricultural tenant. It must be proved by substantial evidence the requisites of agricultural tenancy.
A Simple Guide for Drafting of Conveyances in India : Forms of Conveyances and Instruments executed in the Indian sub-continent along with Notes and Tips
The Small-Business Guide to Government Contracts: How to Comply with the Key Rules and Regulations . . . and Avoid Terminated Agreements, Fines, or Worse