Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agrarian Reform Law It Is The Policy of The State To Make Small Farmers More Independent, Self-Reliant and Responsible Citizens
Agrarian Reform Law It Is The Policy of The State To Make Small Farmers More Independent, Self-Reliant and Responsible Citizens
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
623
and a source of genuine strength in our democratic
society.—Republic Act (RA) No. 3844 (1963), otherwise
known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, declares it
to be the policy of the State to make small farmers more
independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a
source of genuine strength in our democratic society.
Towards this end, the same law guarantees the security
of tenure of farmers with respect to the land they
cultivate.
Same; Tenancy Relations; Grounds for the
Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relations.—As
an exception to this security of tenure, however, Section 8
of RA 3844 specifically enumerates the grounds for the
extinguishment of agricultural leasehold relations, viz:
Section 8. Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold
Relation.—The agricultural leasehold relation
established under this Code shall be extinguished by: (1)
Abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge
of the agricultural lessor; (2) Voluntary surrender of
the landholding by the agricultural lessee, written
notice of which shall be served three months in advance;
or (3) Absence of the persons under Section nine to
succeed to the lessee, in the event of death or permanent
incapacity of the lessee.
Same; Same; Voluntary Surrender; Voluntary
surrender as a mode of extinguishment of tenancy
relations, does not require any court authorization
considering that it involves the tenant’s own volition; The
voluntary surrender of the landholding by an agricultural
lessee should be due to circumstances more advantageous
to him and his family.—Voluntary surrender, as a mode
of extinguishment of tenancy relations, does not require
any court authorization considering that it involves the
tenant’s own volition. To protect the tenant’s right to
security of tenure, voluntary surrender, as contemplated
by law, must be convincingly and sufficiently proved by
competent evidence. The tenant’s intention to surrender
the landholding cannot be presumed, much less
determined by mere implication. Otherwise, the right of a
tenant farmer to security of tenure becomes an illusory
one. Moreover, RA 3844 provides that the voluntary
surrender of the landholding by an agricultural lessee
should be due to circumstances more advantageous to him
and his family.
Same; Same; 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
624
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
In all contractual, property or other relations,
when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on
account of his moral dependence, ignorance,
indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other
handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his
protection.1
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
assailing the July 19, 2007 Decision2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 95154 which
granted respondent’s Petition for Review and
nullified and set aside the Decisions of the Regional
Adjudicator3 dated March 9, 1999 and of the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB)4 dated
_______________
625
_______________
626
The Regional Adjudicator held that the
Compromise Agreement was not enforceable
because it violated the provisions of Administrative
Order No. 12, Series of 1994.10 Said administrative
order requires the payment of disturbance
compensation which should not be less than five
times the average of the annual gross value of the
harvest on their actual landholdings during the last
five preceding calendar years. As such, the
disturbance compensation being offered by
respondent to each of the petitioners, which is
P3,000.00 plus the income derived from a single
cropping, is grossly inade-
_______________
9 Id., at p. 87.
10 Consolidated and Revised Rules and Regulations
Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural
Uses.
627
_______________
11 Rollo, p. 94.
628
The appellate court found the Compromise
Agreement executed by the parties to be valid. It
held that its enforceability is not subject to the
approval by the DARAB of the respondent’s
application for conversion. Likewise, the deficiency
in consideration is not a ground to annul an
otherwise valid and enforceable agreement. The
appellate court also found petitioners to be literate
on the ground that they were able to affix their
signatures to the agreement.
Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was
denied.
Hence, this petition.
Issues
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari
petitioners raise the following issues:
_______________
12 Id., at p. 16.
629
Our Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit.
Well-settled is the rule that this Court is not a
trier of facts. When supported by substantial
evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are
conclusive and binding with, and are not reviewable
by us unless the case falls under any of the
recognized exceptions. One of the exceptions is
when the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to
those of the trial court13 or quasi-judicial agency. In
this case, the findings of fact of the CA and the
DARAB are conflicting, thus we are compelled to
take a look at the factual milieu of this case.
It is the policy of the State to promote
the Security of Tenure of Farmers over
their leasehold.
Republic Act (RA) No. 3844 (1963), otherwise
known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code,
declares it to be the policy of the State to make
small farmers more independent, self-reliant and
responsible citizens, and a source of genuine
strength in our democratic society.14 Towards this
end, the same law guarantees the security of tenure
of farmers with respect to the land they cultivate,
thus:
_______________
630
As an exception to this security of tenure,
however, Section 8 of RA 3844 specifically
enumerates the grounds for the extinguishment of
agricultural leasehold relations, viz:
Voluntary surrender, as a mode of
extinguishment of tenancy relations, does not
require any court authorization considering that it
involves the tenant’s own volition.15 To protect the
tenant’s right to security of tenure, voluntary
surrender, as contemplated by law, must be
convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent
evidence. The tenant’s intention to surrender the
landholding cannot be presumed, much less
determined by mere implication. Otherwise, the
right of a tenant farmer to security of tenure
becomes an illusory one.16 Moreover, RA 3844
provides that the voluntary surrender of
_______________
631
the landholding by an agricultural lessee should be
due to circumstances more advantageous to him and
his family.17
The Compromise Agreement did not
constitute the “voluntary surrender”
contemplated by law.
Respondent asserts that petitioners voluntarily
surrendered their landholdings. Petitioners,
however, deny this claim and instead maintain that
they did not execute the Compromise Agreement
with a view to absolutely sell and surrender their
tenancy rights in exchange for P3,000.00 for each of
them. They assert that such agreement was subject
to suspensive conditions, i.e., the approval of
respondent’s application for conversion of the land
to non-agricultural and their subsequent absorption
as laborers in the business that respondent will put
up on said land, or, if the application will not be
approved, petitioners will continue to be tenants of
the land and could later on qualify as beneficiaries
of the CARP. Petitioners assert that they were not
aware that these conditions were not incorporated
in the Compromise Agreement because they were
not literate in the English language used. Neither
were they represented by counsel nor were the
contents of the agreement explained to them.
Petitioners thus claim that the Compromise
Agreement should be interpreted in accordance
with the real intention of the parties pursuant
_______________
632
Respondent, on the other hand, counters that as
the Compromise Agreement does not reflect the
conditions alleged by petitioners, parol evidence
should not be allowed to prove such conditions; that
petitioners cannot claim that they are illiterate in
the English language and that the contents of the
agreement were not explained to them as it is
incumbent upon every contracting party to learn
and know the contents of an instrument before
signing and agreeing to it; and, that it was not
necessary for petitioners to be assisted by counsel
in signing the agreement as the execution thereof is
not akin to a custodial investigation or criminal
proceedings wherein the right to be represented by
counsel is indispensable. As to the disturbance fee,
respondent believes that the sum of
_______________
633
_______________
634
A perusal of the subject Compromise Agreement
reveals that the parties considered the amount of
P3,000.00 together with the income from a single
cropping as comprising the disturbance
compensation package, viz.:
Petitioners, however, assail the disturbance
compensation package provided in the Compromise
Agreement as insufficient and contrary to
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 2004. They
claim that they would not have acceded to such a
_______________
635
_______________
636