7/25/2019 Masquel vs Orial

1/3

G.R. No. 148044 October 19, 2007

ANTONIO MASAQUEL (no !ece"#e!, re$re#ente! b% &'# #on OSE MASAQUEL),

ULIANA MASAQUEL (no !ece"#e!, re$re#ente! b% &er #on RO*OL+O MARRERO),

AOLONIA MASAQUEL (no !ece"#e!, re$re#ente! b% &er #on, RO*OL+OTOLENTINO) "n! MARIA MASAQUEL,petitioners,

vs.

AIME ORIAL,respondent.

* E - I S I O N

TINGA, J.

On 27 September 1993, Jaime Orial (respondent) filed an amended complaint with the !"!#a$ainst petitioners alle$in$ that he was a tenant of a parcel of a$ric%lt%ral land owned b& and

re$istered in the name of !ntonio. "espondent pra&ed that a temporar& restrainin$ order beiss%ed and '%d$ment be rendered affirmin$ his peacef%l possession and en'o&ment of the

landholdin$.

n their answer, petitioners denied the e*istence of a tenanc& relationship between them and

respondent. +laimin$ that respondent was a mere %s%rper and trespasser,

n a ecision dated 1 ecember 199-, the provincial ad'%dicator r%led that respondent was not

a tenant of the s%b'ect land and conse%entl& dismissed the complaint for lac/ of merit.

On appeal, the !"!# reversed the findin$s of the provincial ad'%dicator and declared

respondent a tenant of the s%b'ect land.

0etitioners elevated the case to the +o%rt of !ppeals.

he appellate co%rt affirmed the !"!# decision on 9 a& 21. o bolster its concl%sion that

respondent was a tenant of the s%b'ect landholdin$, the appellate co%rt also relied on a doc%ment

p%rportedl& e*ec%ted on 27 J%ne 1994 b& a certain ario Oliveros who ac/nowled$edrespondent5s occ%pation of the s%b'ect lot from 19 to 1994.14

n d%e time, petitioners filed the instant petition for review s%bmittin$ that the +o%rt of !ppeals$ravel& erred in declarin$ respondent a tenant based solel& on the certifications iss%ed b& the

baran$a& captain and the !"O and in disre$ardin$ settled '%rispr%dence that tenanc&relationship can onl& be created with the consent of the landowner.1

he main iss%e in this petition is whether or not a tenanc& relationship e*isted between the

parties.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_148044_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_148044_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_148044_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_148044_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_148044_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_148044_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_148044_2007.html#fnt6

7/25/2019 Masquel vs Orial

2/3

he heart of the controvers& relates to the presence or absence of elements.

6O +OS8 6!S !+:"8 !S "8:"8 ;O" 8

7/25/2019 Masquel vs Orial

3/3

o. 4242 are !:>>8 and S8 !S8. he complaint in !"!# +ase o. ED"iD7D

93 is SSS8.

SO OR*ERE*.