Talavera vs Laxamana

Facts:

Jose Laxamana instituted an action for recovery of possession on July 10, 1984 against the
petitioners over a parcel of land located in Brgy. Sto. Domingo 11, Sition Tambo, Capas Tarlac. Private
respondent alleged that he had been a bonafide tenant of the said land since 1958. He had been in
continuous possession of the said land until the petitioners took possession of it and planted palay
without private respondent’s knowledge and through force and intimidation. The private respondent
suffered damages amounting to P500.00 and the price equivalent to sixty-five cavans of palay per
agricultural year. In the petitioners’ defence, they stated that the taking of the private respondent’s
possession was in accordance with their “Casunduan” executed on March 30, 1973 and that he was not
actually a tenant of the petitioners. The document states that private respondent sold his rights and
interests over the property for a consideration of P1, 000.00. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favour of
the private respondent to which the petitioners appealed in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the lower court’s decision that the Casunduan did not constitute valid surrender of the land
contemplated under the law.

Issue:

Whether or not the surrender of the land by the private respondent constitutes “valid surrender”
contemplated by the law

Held:

No, the surrender did not constitute a valid surrender as contemplated by the law. The Decision
of the RTC and the CA is affirmed. Under the Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines (R.A. No. 3844)
Section 8, agricultural leasehold shall only be extinguished based on the following grounds:

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 person under Section rune to succeed to the lessee, in the event of death or
permanent incapacity of the lessee.

Voluntary surrender does not require any court authorization since it involves the tenant’s own volition
however, it must be shown that the surrender was voluntary through convincing and sufficiently proved
evidence. It cannot be presumed nor implied otherwise, the right of the tenant to security of tenure
becomes illusory one. It was shown that the Casunduan was prepared by petitioner Visitacion Talavera
and that Jose Laxamana, at the time the Casunduan was made, needed money for his wife’s illness
which later caused her death. Laxamana could also hardly sign his own name. Laxamana also continued
working on the land until 1984 even after the Casunduan was made while the Talaveras claimed that
they cultivated the land themselves. Exhibits presented as evidence showed that Talaveras did not
cultivate the land and actually resides in another barangay. The circumstances showed that Laxamana
was forced to sign the Casunduan without fully understanding it and continued cultivating the land after.