POLICARPIO NISNISAN AND On June 25, 1992, the trial court rendered a

ERLINDA NISNISAN, petitioners, decision dismissing the complaint ruling

vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PACITA that the petitioners-spouses allegation of
MANCERA, WENCESLAO MANCERA tenancy is repudiated by the affidavit
and SILVESTRE executed by Gavino Nisnisan to the effect
POLANCOS, respondents. that the subject land is not tenanted.
G.R. No. 126425
12 August 1998 The trial court ratiocinated in this wise: As
J. Martinez to the claim of reinstatement by Policarpio
Nisnisan, it appears from the affidavit of Gavino
Facts: Spouses Gavino and Florencia Nisnisan which was executed and filed with the
Nisnisan are the owners of a parcel of land Office of the Register of Deeds of Davao del Sur,
denominated as Lot No. 2510, Cad 275 and recorded as Entry No. 117718, per
located at Dolo, Bansalan, Davao del Sur, memorandum of encumbrances of Original
with an area of 4.9774 hectares, covered by Certificate of Title No. (P-11676)-2151 (Exhibit
Original Certificate of Title No. (P-11676)- A/5-C) that the said land is not tenanted
2151. Petitioner Policarpio Nisnisan, son of The decision was affirmed by the Court of
Gavino Nisnisan, has been cultivating one Appeals
hectare of the aforesaid land since 1961.
Issue: Whether or not petitioners Spouses
On April 1, 1976, Gavino Nisnisan and Policarpio and Erlinda Nisnisan voluntarily
petitioner Policarpio Nisnisan entered into a surrendered their tenancy holding.
leasehold tenancy contract which stipulates
a sharing arrangement of 1/3:2/3 of the Ruling: Petition meritorious
harvest, the bigger share being given to the
latter. The finding of the Court of Appeals that the
petitioners-spouses are not tenants of the
On December 28, 1978, Gavino subject land holding is erroneous. While
Nisnisan sold two hectares of their land, there are annotations in Gavino
including the land tenanted by petitioners-
Nisnisans certificate of title (Entry No.
spouses Policarpio and Erlinda Nisnisan, to
72086 for Affidavit of Non-Tenancy under
private respondents-spouses Wenceslao
Mancera and Pacita H. Mancera. Justice Circular No. 31 and Entry No.
117718 for Affidavit of Non-Tenancy
As a result of the sale, petitioners-spouses executed by Gavino Nisnisan) that the
were ousted from their landholding. Hence, subject land is not tenanted, said
on November 24, 1982, petitioners-spouses annotations are not conclusive proof of the
instituted an action for reinstatement of real relationship between Gavino Nisnisan
tenancy holding against private respondent and petitioner Policarpio Nisnisan and are
spouses Wenceslao and Pacita Mancera not binding upon the court.
before the Court of Agrarian Relations
(CAR) in Davao City. Moreover, petitioners-spouses have
sufficiently shown that they are the tenants
The private respondents Mancera spouses of the spouses Gavino and Florencia
countered that the Nisnisan spouses have Nisnisan as evidenced by a document
no cause of action, the entitled Panagsabutan Sa Abang Sa Yuta
latter having voluntarily surrendered their (Exhibit D), executed by Gavino Nisnisan
landholding. and Policarpio Nisnisan on April 1,
1976, acknowledged before the Municipal entitled to security of tenure as mandated
Trial Court Judge Mariano C. Tupas of by Section 10 of Republic Act 3844:
Bansalan, Davao del Sur, and registered
before the Municipal Treasurers Office. Section 10. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not
Extinguished by Expiration of Period, etc.- The
The above-quoted document evidences agricultural leasehold relation under this Code
the leasehold tenancy relationship between shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of
Gavino Nisnisan and petitioner Policarpio the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by
Nisnisan. It clearly shows that the subject the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal
land is agricultural; that petitioner possession of the landholding. In case the
Policarpio Nisnisan is obligated to cultivate agricultural lessor sells, alienates or
the same by planting rice thereon; and, that transfers the legal possession of the
there is sharing of the harvests between the landholdings, the purchaser or transferee
said parties. It is clear that essential thereof shall be subrogated to the rights
elements of tenancy relationship are present and substituted to the obligations of the
in this case, namely: agricultural lessor.
1. the parties are the landowner and the
tenant
2. the subject matter is agricultural land
3. there is consent BIENVENIDO T. BUADA ET.AL.,
4. the purpose is agricultural production petitioners, vs. CEMENT CENTER,
5. there is personal cultivation by the INC. respondents.
tenants G.R. No. 180374
6. there is sharing of harvests between 22 January 2010
parties J. Del Castillo

Significantly, this documentary evidence of Facts: Petitioners Bienvenido T. Buada, Isaias B.

leasehold tenancy relationship was never Quinto, Nemesio Bautista, Orlando T. Bautista,
Freddie R. Bautista, Carlito O. Buada, Gerardo
rebutted by the private respondents-
O. Buada, Armando M. Oliva, Rogelio F.
spouses. Furthermore, this leasehold
Rapajon, and Eugenio F. Flores were tenant-
tenancy contract cannot be defeated by the farmers cultivating three parcels of agricultural
aforementioned affidavit of non-tenancy land owned by respondent Cement Center, Inc.
executed by Gavino Nisnisan, which is
obviously self-serving. On March 13, 1998, respondent filed a
Complaint for Confirmation of Voluntary
Under Section 8 of Republic Act No.
Surrender and Damages against petitioners
3844, voluntary surrender, as a mode of
with the Department of Agrarian Reform
extinguishing agricultural leasehold
Adjudication Board, Region 1
tenancy relations, must be convincingly
in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. It claimed that
and sufficiently proved by competent
on June 28, 1995, petitioners entered into a
evidence. The tenants intention to
Compromise Agreement with respondent
surrender the landholding cannot be
whereby the former, for and in consideration of
presumed, much less determined by mere
the sum of P3,000.00 each, voluntarily
implication.
surrendered their respective
Based on the foregoing disquisition, it landholdings. However, despite respondents
is clear that petitioners-spouses are repeated demands, petitioners refused to vacate
agricultural lessees and are therefore subject landholdings.
 In their Answer, petitioners alleged that Alleging that the DARAB gravely erred and
their consent to the Compromise committed grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing its appeal, respondent thereafter
Agreement was obtained through fraud, deceit, filed a Petition for Review with the CA. The CA
and misrepresentation. They claimed that found the appeal meritorious. Alleging that the
sometime in 1995, respondent induced them to DARAB gravely erred and committed grave
sign a Compromise Agreement by representing abuse of discretion in dismissing its appeal,
that the subject landholdings are no longer respondent thereafter filed a Petition for Review
viable for agricultural purposes. Petitioners with the CA. The CA found the appeal
alleged that respondent assured them that they meritorious.
would only apply for the conversion of the land
and that they would have to surrender the land Issue: Whether or not the CA gravely erred in
only upon the approval of said application and making an inference that the compromise
that thereafter, they will be paid a disturbance agreement was not subject to interpretation.
compensation of P3,000.00 each. Petitioners
also claimed that respondent promised to hire Ruling: The Petition was impressed with
them to work on the project that was planned merit
for the converted land. But, should the
application for conversion be denied, It is the policy of the State to promote the Security of
petitioners will continue to be tenants and could Tenure of Farmers over their leasehold.
later become beneficiaries under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Republic Act (RA) No. 3844 (1963), otherwise
known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code,
On March 9, 1999, the Regional Adjudicator declares it to be the policy of the State to make
rendered a decision in favor of the tenant- small farmers more independent, self-reliant
farmers. The Regional Adjudicator held that the and responsible citizens, and a source of
Compromise Agreement was not enforceable genuine strength in our democratic society.
because it violated the provisions of
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994. As an exception to the security of
[10]
Said administrative order requires the tenure, under the law, Section 8 of RA 3844
payment of disturbance compensation which specifically enumerates the grounds for the
should not be less than five times the average of extinguishment of agricultural leasehold
the annual gross value of the harvest on their relations, viz:
actual landholdings during the last five
preceding calendar years. Section
8. Extinguishment of
Aggrieved, respondent appealed to DARAB Agricultural Leasehold
who affirmed the Decision of the Regional Relation. The agricultural
Adjudicator, the DARAB found that leasehold relation established
respondent failed to prove that petitioners under this Code shall be
voluntarily surrendered their tenancy rights extinguished by:
over the subject landholdings. It held that since
the application for conversion was denied, then (1) Abandonment of
the Compromise Agreement is not a perfected the landholding without the
obligation; it is as if the petitioners voluntary knowledge of the agricultural
surrender never existed. lessor;
 (2) Voluntary show that they gave up their
surrender of the landholding leasehold rights "dahil sa aming
by the agricultural lessee, kagustuhang umiba ng hanap
written notice of which shall be buhay ng higit ang pagkikitaan
served three months in kaysa panakahan." The money
advance; or given by respondents as
disturbance compensation was
(3) Absence of the indeed advantageous to the
persons under Section nine to families of petitioners, as it
succeed to the lessee, in the would have allowed them to
event of death or permanent pursue other sources of
incapacity of the livelihood.
lessee. (Emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the subject Compromise
The Compromise Agreement did not Agreement reveals that the parties considered
constitute the voluntary surrender the amount of P3,000.00 together with the
contemplated by law. income from a single cropping as comprising
the disturbance compensation package, viz:
As earlier stated, vital to these contentions is the
resolution of the basic issue of whether or not 4. The aforeindicated
petitioners as tenants-farmers intended to income derived from the
absolutely and voluntarily surrender their properties and the financial
tenancy rights over the subject landholdings. assistance of P3,000.00 shall
be considered as the
In Talavera v. Court of Appeals said case, found disturbance compensation
that the evidence on record and therein package in favor of the
petitioners' arguments were not enough to SECOND PARTY by reason or
overcome the rights of the private respondent as a result of their vacating the
as provided in the Constitution and the premises in accordance with
agrarian statutes. In this case Administrative Order No. 1,
the [K]asunduan was taken into consideration Series of 1990 of the
wherein the leasehold tenant allegedly Department of Agrarian
surrendered his tenancy rights voluntarily for Reform. (Emphasis supplied)
the sum of P1,000.00, did not constitute
voluntary surrender as contemplated by law, Petitioners, however, assail the
and reinstated the tenant in the landholding. disturbance compensation package provided in
the Compromise Agreement as insufficient and
On the other hand, in Levardo v. contrary to Administrative Order No. 12, Series
Yatco, the Court upheld the waiver of tenancy of 2004. They claim that they would not have
rights and ruled that: acceded to such a measly amount were it not
for the agreement that respondent will hire
Based on the evidence them as workers on the planned project on the
on record, respondents paid subject land.
Aguido P2,000,000.00 and
Hernando P2,417,142.00 as Despite the above contentions of
disturbance compensation. A petitioners, respondent failed to present
reading of the Pinanumpaang evidence to show that the disturbance
Salaysay executed by petitioners compensation package corresponds with the
compensation required by the said
Administrative Order. Neither was there any
showing that said disturbance compensation is
not less than five times the average annual
gross value of the harvest on petitioners actual
landholdings during the preceding five
calendar years.

Moreover, it was not shown why

petitioners as tenant-farmers would voluntarily
give up their sole source of livelihood. There
was likewise no showing that the money was
indeed advantageous to petitioners families as
to allow them to pursue other sources of
livelihood. To stress, tenancy relations cannot
be bargained away except for the strong
reasons provided by law which must be
convincingly shown by evidence in line with
the State's policy of achieving a dignified
existence for the small farmers free from
pernicious institutional restraints and practices.