29. Pineda vs.

De Guzman
G.R. No. L-23773-47
December 29, 1967
Topic: Rights of Agricultural Lesee
Facts:
The Landowner filed a petition in the SAC for mechanization of his land and
duly informed the tenants of this plan. The Tenants opposed the said petition
and filed a motion to dismiss. The SAC rendered a decision in favor of the
landowners. The Tenants did not appeal the said decision and it becomes
final and executory. The Landowner waited for month before filing in the
court for a writ of execution. The Tenants did not acknowledge the said
execution and assailing they cannot be ejected in land for a year from the
finality of judgment and that they still have crops that are to be harvested.
Issue:
Whether can the Tenants be ejected from the land?
Held:
No, The Landowners clearly acted in bad faith in waiting for months before
executing the said judgment. They have waited for the crops to before
asking the court for the execution of the said judgment. It must also be
considered that under Section 50(a), Republic Act 1199, the judgment
against them cannot be enforced against them for the lapse of one year
Cecilleville Realty and Service Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
278 SCRA 819 (1997)
Facts:
Petitioner Cecilleville Realty owns a parcel of land, a portion of which is
occupied by Herminigildo Pascual. Despite repeated demands, Herminigildo
refused to vacate the property and insisted that he is entitled to occupy the
land since he is helping his mother, the corporation's tenant, to cultivate the
property.
Issue: Whether or not private respondent is a tenant of the said land which
entitles him to create an abode of his own.
Held:
Only a tenant is granted the right to have a home lot and the right to
construct or maintain a house thereon. And here, private respondent does
not dispute that he is not petitioner's tenant. In fact, he admits that he is a
mere member of Ana Pascual's immediate farm household. Under the law,
therefore, we find private respondent not entitled to a homelot. Neither is he

entitled to construct a house of his own or to continue maintaining the same

within the very small landholding of petitioner. . . . Thus, if the Court were to
follow private respondent's argument and allow all the members of the
tenant's immediate farm household to construct and maintain their houses
and to be entitled to not more than one thousand (1,000) square meters
each of home lot, as what private respondent wanted this Court to dole-out,
then farms will be virtually converted into rows, if not colonies, of houses.
Nisnisan, et al vs. Court of Appeals
294 SCRA 173 (1998)
Facts:
Spouses Gavino and Florencia Nisnisan are the owners of a 4.9774 hectare
land in Davao del Sur. Policarpio, the son of Gavino, has been cultivating one
(1) ha of said land since 1961. In 1976, Gavino and Policarpio executed a
leasehold contract which stipulates a sharing arrangement of 1/3:2/3 of the
harvest. In 1978, Gavino sold two (2) ha of the land, including the land
tenanted by Policarpio, to spouses Mancera. As a result of the sale, Policarpio
and family were ousted. They then filed an action for reinstatement of
tenancy against the Manceras. The Manceras, on the other hand, countered
that spouses Nisnisan have no cause of action because they voluntarily
surrendered their landholding.
Issue:
Is the tenant deemed to have voluntarily surrendered subject landholding?
Held:
Other than their bare allegations, private respondents failed to present any
evidence to show that petitioners-spouses surrendered their landholding
voluntarily after the private respondents purchased the subject property.
Moreover, the filing of the complaint for reinstatement of leasehold tenancy
by petitioners-spouses against private respondents before the CAR militates
against the private respondents' claim that petitioners-spouses voluntarily
surrendered their landholding to them. Under Sec. 8 of RA 3844, voluntary
surrender, as a mode of extinguishing agricultural leasehold tenancy
relations, 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.