G. R. No.

77830
February 27, 1990
VICTOR TALAVERA and VISITACION AGUSTIN TALAVERA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE LAXAMANA,
respondents.

This is a petition for review on certiorari. The Court is asked to examine whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error
in its finding that there was no voluntary surrender of the landholding in question on the part of respondent Laxamana as tenant.

Facts:

1. The respondent, LAXAMANA , filed an action for recovery of possession over a parcel of land in Tarlac.

a. In his complaint, he alleged that he was a bona fide tenant of the land since 1958 until the petitioners
possessed the land in 1984.
b. He claims that the petitioners planted palay through force and intimidation, causing the respondent
damages and dispossession.

2. The petitioner TALAVERA answered the complaint, alleging that there was a tenancy relationship between the
parties.

a. This relationship was allegedly terminated through a “Casunduan” where the respondent sold his rights and
interest over the landholding

3. Lower Court: Ruled in favor of the respondent. Court of Appeals: Affirmed. The Casunduan did not constitute as
voluntary surrender.

Issue: Whether or not a mere contract between parties may be considered as voluntary surrender by the tenant provided
under Section 8, par. 2 of RA 3844.

Held: No it cannot.

Ratio:

Section 8 provides that the agricultural leasehold relation shall be extinguished by

(1) Abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the agricultural lessor;

(2) Voluntary surrender of the land holding by the agricultural lessee, written notice of which shall be served three months in
advance; or

(3) Absence of the persons under Section rune to succeed to the lessee, in the event of death or permanent incapacity of
the lessee.

*Voluntary surrender as mode of extinguishment relies on the tenant’s own volition and does not require any court
authorization. To protect the rights of the tenant, this intention to surrender must be convincingly and sufficiently proved
by competent evidence. It cannot be implied or presumed.

*The Supreme Court reviewed the facts and found that:

a. Laxamana, who was illiterate, needed money for the treatment of his sick wife (Php 1,000)
b. In such need, he approached the petitioners leading to him giving up the property in the Casunduan
c. Essentially, Laxamana gave up his sole source of livelihood to pay off his debts.

*The Court found that the respondent was forced by circumstances to sign the Casunduan which he did not fully
understand.

*Doctrine: Tenancy Relations cannot be bargained away except for 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.

*Payment of debt incurred due to unfortunate circumstances is not sufficient ground to extinguish a tenancy agreement.
Such is a conclusion requiring an examination of fact.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated
March 3, 1987 is AFFIRMED.