This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-01-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Closer to, although not identical with, the factual setting of this case is Talavera v. Court of Appeals.[19] In said case, we found that the evidence on record and therein petitioners' arguments were not enough to overcome the rights of the private respondent as provided in the Constitution and the agrarian statutes. The following circumstances were considered: (1) the [K]asunduan executed by the tenant-farmer in favor of the landowners wherein the former purportedly voluntarily relinquished his tenancy rights for the amount of P1,000.00 was prepared by one of the landowners; (2) the tenant-farmer continued to work on the farm from 1973 to 1984 when the landowners ejected him, or for a period of more than 10 years after the execution of the [K]asunduan; and, (3) it was not shown why the tenant-farmer would voluntarily give up his sole source of livelihood even if he needed money to pay off his debts or what he did from 1973 to 1984 if the claim of the Talaveras that they worked on the land themselves during said period was correct. Hence, we held that the [K]asunduan wherein the leasehold tenant allegedly surrendered his tenancy rights voluntarily for the sum of P1,000.00, did not constitute "voluntary surrender" as contemplated by law, and reinstated the tenant in the landholding. | |||||
|
2010-01-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| 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.[22] | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Even as we uphold time and again the existence and validity of implied agricultural tenancy agreements, the inverse does not essentially follow. The intention of a tenant to surrender the landholding and concomitantly the statutory rights emanating from the status of being a tenant, absent a positive act, cannot, and should not, be presumed, much less determined by implication alone. Otherwise, the right of a tenant to security of tenure becomes an illusory one. Tenancy relations cannot be bargained away except for the strong reasons provided by law[23] which must be convincingly shown by evidence. | |||||
|
2005-04-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We have ruled that the intention of a tenant to surrender the landholding cannot be presumed, much less determined by implication. Otherwise, the right of a tenant to security of tenure becomes an illusory one. Tenancy relations cannot be bargained away except for the strong reasons provided by law which must be convincingly shown by evidence.[34] We are convinced beyond cavil that because of his illness which rendered him physically incapable of cultivating the landholding, Ruperto Puyat, Sr., indeed, abandoned the landholding, sold his improvements thereon to the petitioner. The resounding silence of Ruperto Puyat, Sr. since 1963 until his death and the respondent for thirty years since 1963 even when P.D. No. 27 took effect is daunting evidence of such abandonment and surrender. If one maintains silence, when in conscience he ought to speak, equity will debar him from speaking when in conscience he ought to remain silent. He who remains silent when he ought to speak cannot be heard to speak when he should be silent.[35] We cannot, in law and in conscience, condone the eviction of the petitioner who, for the same period of time, tenanted the property without any plaint from Ruperto Puyat, Sr. and/or his son and dutifully paid the amortizations of the land. | |||||