Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Zamora Vs Su JR 1990

    Uploaded by

    Ruperto A. Alfafara III
    98 views2 pages
    Zamora worked as an overseer of Su's land, administering it in exchange for a monthly wage and a share of profits from coconut sales. When Su took on debt and loaned the land to creditors, Zamora was laid off. Zamora filed a case for illegal dismissal. The court found that Zamora was entitled to back wages and shares but lacked jurisdiction over agrarian cases. The Supreme Court ruled that the relationship was not one of tenancy as Zamora did not personally cultivate the land. A tenancy requires cultivation by the tenant themselves or with household aid.

    Original Description:

    I Personally made this digest hence, I take credit for it hahaha. You may use it wisely :D

    Original Title

    Zamora vs Su Jr 1990

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Zamora worked as an overseer of Su's land, administering it in exchange for a monthly wage and a share of profits from coconut sales. When Su took on debt and loaned the land to creditors, Zamora was laid off. Zamora filed a case for illegal dismissal. The court found that Zamora was entitled to back wages and shares but lacked jurisdiction over agrarian cases. The Supreme Court ruled that the relationship was not one of tenancy as Zamora did not personally cultivate the land. A tenancy requires cultivation by the tenant themselves or with household aid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    98 views2 pages

    Zamora Vs Su JR 1990

    Uploaded by

    Ruperto A. Alfafara III
    Zamora worked as an overseer of Su's land, administering it in exchange for a monthly wage and a share of profits from coconut sales. When Su took on debt and loaned the land to creditors, Zamora was laid off. Zamora filed a case for illegal dismissal. The court found that Zamora was entitled to back wages and shares but lacked jurisdiction over agrarian cases. The Supreme Court ruled that the relationship was not one of tenancy as Zamora did not personally cultivate the land. A tenancy requires cultivation by the tenant themselves or with household aid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Zamora vs Su Jr.

    G.R. No. 85611


    April 6, 1990
    Topic: Elements of Tenancy Relation
    Fact:
    A certain Su owned a land wherein Su employed Zamora to be an Overseer of his land and to administer
    it. In exchange of Zamoras service he was paid with 2,400 pesos per month and 1/3 of the earning of
    the Coconut plantation.
    In May 1981, The Landowner incurred a debt therefore he loaned the land to creditor together with it
    fruits. The current possessor of the land lay off Zamora until Su reacquired the said property.
    This compelled Zamora to file a case against the private respondents to the labor arbiter of illegal
    dismissal.
    Upon the investigation Labor Arbiter it was found that it Zamora was entitled to backwages and his
    share in the sales of the earnings of the Coconut plantation.
    The Private Respondents appealed in the NLRC and the NLRC rendered a decision in favor of the
    landowners. Reversing the decision of the labor arbiter and declaring that there was a tenancy
    relationship between the parites therefore the it is the Agrarian courts that has jurisdiction over the
    case.
    Issue:
    Is there a Tenancy relationship between the parties?
    Held:
    No, It is clear that Zamora was paid wages to administer the land of Su. The court laid down the
    elements for the tenancy relationship to exist in this case and these are:
    1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant;
    2) The subject is agricultural land;
    3) There is consent;
    4) The purpose is agricultural production;
    5) There is personal cultivation; and
    6) There is sharing of harvest or payment of rental.
    The element of personal cultivation of the land, or with the aid of his farm household, is essential in
    establishing a landlord-tenant or a lessor-lessee relationship, is absent in the relationship between Su
    and Zamora. Zamora did not cultivate any part of Su's plantation either by himself or with the help of his
    household.

    You might also like