[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
162 views2 pages

Zamora Vs Su JR 1990

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.

Uploaded by

Ruperto A. Alfafara III
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
162 views2 pages

Zamora Vs Su JR 1990

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.

Uploaded by

Ruperto A. Alfafara III
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 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