NINTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. SP No. 38114. September 30, 1996.]

VENANCIO ZAMORA, MATILDE DE JESUS VDA. DE ZAMORA, LORENZO S.

MANGAHIS, ANTONIO M. HINON, and ELENA MARCUAP, petitioners, vs.
ROBERTA ENTENA, MYRNA ENTENA, CARLOS RUIZ, Jr., EDGARDO M.
DEL FONSO, ROMMEL M. LEUTERIO, INVESTMENT CAPITAL CORP. OF
THE PHILIPPINES, SAN LORENZO DEVELOPMENT CORP., and
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION
BOARD, respondents.

DECISION

IBAY-SOMERA, C., J : p

This is an appeal from the decision of the Department of Agrarian

Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirming on appeal that of the Provincial
Adjudicator which states among other things, that the petitioners have no
tenancy rights over the subject parcel of land which constitutes the retention area
of the respondents-owners, Roberta Entena, Myrna Entena and Carlos Ruiz, Jr.
and exempted from the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 27 and the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and that petitioners have
voluntarily surrendered their tenancy rights over the said parcel of land and paid
disturbance compensation.
The complaint filed on April 17, 1991 with the Provincial Adjudicator of
the Department of Agrarian Reform at Sta. Rosa Laguna by petitioners, claimed
that they have been in occupation, actual tillage and personal cultivation of the
subject parcels of land consisting of 81,503 square meters situated in Barangay
Malitlit, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, belonging to defendants-appellants Roberta Entena,
Myrna Entena and Carlos Ruiz, Jr., prior to October 31, 1972 up to May 19,
1989. They further claimed that certificates of land transfer were issued to them
on July 13, 1982 through then Secretary Conrado F. Estrella of the Department
of Agrarian Reform. On May 8, 1989, Roberta Entena, for herself as a co-owner
and as attorney-in-fact of her co-owners Myrna Entena and Carlos Ruiz, Jr.,
convinced the petitioners to surrender their possession, tillage and cultivation of
the said parcel of land after they were paid disturbance compensation. The
voluntary surrender was contained in a document entitled, "KUSANG LOOB NG
PAGSASAULI NG PAGGAWA SA LUPA" signed by them on May 8, 1989 and
accompanied by "SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY" also on the same day.
Subsequently, or on April 8, 1991, petitioners discovered thru their counsel that
on June 20, 1989, the owners Roberta Entena, Myrna Entena and Carlos Ruiz,
Jr. sold the land to respondents Edgardo del Fonso and Rommel M. Leuterio
who later on sold it to respondent San Lorenzo Development Corporation, which
sales were done without written notice to petitioners.
Respondents Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines
and Edgardo M. del Fonso and Rommel M. Leuterio moved to dismiss complaint
on November 8, 1981 for failure to state cause of action.
Respondent San Lorenzo Development Corporation filed its answer to
the complaint on November 12, 1991 with cross-claim against Edgardo M. del
Fonso and Rommel M. Leuterio further stating that its acquisition of the land was
in good faith and upon the seller's representation that the same is not tenanted
nor occupied by tillers or subject to leasehold agreement and not devoted to rice
or corn production. IDaEHS

From the evidence submitted by the parties, the Provincial Adjudicator

found as a fact that petitioners executed a voluntary surrender over their
farmholdings and received disturbance compensation. The voluntary surrender
was embodied in public documents "KUSANG LOOB NG PAGSASAULI NG
PAGGAWA NG LUPA" (Annexes "B", "C", "D", and "E", Complaint; pp. 55-58,
Rollo) submitted by petitioners themselves. The payment of disturbance
compensation was done at the Sta. Rosa Rural Bank and duly acknowledged by
petitioners. The instrument of voluntary surrender "KUSANG LOOB NG
PAGSASAULI NG PAGGAWA SA LUPA" was written in Tagalog, signed by the
petitioners and notarized before a notary public. On June 20, 1989, the property
was sold to respondents Edgardo del Fonso and Rommel Leuterio who later sold
it to their co-respondent San Lorenzo Development Corporation.
The Provincial Adjudicator found no certificate of land transfer issued
to petitioners who presented none. In the report of the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Office of Sta. Rosa, Laguna dated October 23, 1989 (Annex "C", p. 181, Rollo;
Memorandum of respondents Investment Capital Corporation of the Philippines)
after an ocular inspection and investigation on the land in question he stated that
the sales are legal and that the land is the retention area of respondents Roberta
Entena, Myrna Entena and Carlos Ruiz, Jr. On October 15, 1992, the Provincial
Adjudicator rendered his decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

a) Declaring plaintiffs as having voluntarily surrendered/waived their
tenural rights over the land in question and terminating/extinguishing their
tenancy relationship thereto;
b) Declaring plaintiffs as having no right to claim possession and full
ownership over subject land, to be paid thereon, to issuance of Eps, to
redemption nor to nullify the sales to defendants;
c) Ordering the recall, if any were issued, CLT No. 0-064717 in name of
Venancio Zamora; CLT No. 0-064713 in name of Matilde de Jesus vda. de
Zamora and CLT No. 0-064837 in name of Lorenzo Mangahis and the
cancellation thereof;
d) Confirming the land in question as the retention area of the co-owners,
Roberta Entena, Myrna Entena and Carlos Ruiz, Jr., and exempting said land
from coverage of P.D. 27 or LOI 474, and the CARP; and
e) Confirming the series of sales of said land to defendants Edgardo del
Fonso and Rommel Leuterio and the sale to San Lorenzo Development Corp.,
as valid and enforceable."
(Annex "L"; pp. 292-293, Rollo)
From the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator, the petitioners
appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Board (DARAB). IcHTAa

On appeal, the DARAB held that the respondents Roberta Entena,

Anita Entena/Carlos Ruiz, Jr. and Myrna Entena had no other landholdings
throughout the Philippines except the subject property wherein they owned an
individual area of less than seven (7) hectares each, to wit:
Roberta Entena — 4.7 has.
Anita Entena
Carlos Ruiz, Jr. — 2.3 has.
Myrna Entena — 1.1 has.
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Team Office in Sta. Cruz,
Laguna which has jurisdiction over the subject property had found out: (1) the
subject landholdings were not tenanted since plaintiffs-appellants had already
surrendered their rights of cultivation after payment of disturbance compensation
to them on May 8, 1989; (2) that the subject landholdings were no longer planted
to crops and that the vendees are in actual possession thereof since the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale on June 20, 1989; (3) that said
landholdings are the retention areas of said landowners. The areas are
exempted from Operation Land Transfer coverage and no certificates of land
transfer were awarded to petitioners; hence, the Deed of Absolute Sale was duly
registered and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-199777 was issued to the
vendees, respondents Edgardo del Fonso and Rommel Leuterio.
 The DARAB held that rice and/or corn lands seven (7) hectares or
less are not covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT) and as the landowners,
respondents Roberta Entena, Myrna Entena and Carlos Ruiz, Jr. had no other
landholdings, the disputed parcel of land of 8.1 hectares, is an exempt area from
OLT coverage and that whatever relations that petitioners may have had on the
property, was only one of leasehold which was extinguished when they
voluntarily surrendered their farmholdings waiving their tenancy rights on May 8,
1989 and received disturbance compensation therefor. The DARAB found the
voluntary surrender to have been executed and signed by the petitioners freely
and voluntarily as in fact their actual abandonment of the area was confirmed by
the DAR Team Office which conducted an ocular inspection of the area and
found the same no longer tenanted nor planted to crops and the vendees,
respondents Edgardo del Fonso and Rommel M. Leuterio, already in actual
possession. Since petitioners had no tenancy rights over the property which is
exempt from OLT coverage, petitioners had no right of redemption when it was
sold to Edgardo M. del Fonso and Rommel M. Leuterio and then to San Lorenzo
Development Corporation. TSIDEa

The DARAB affirmed the appealed decision of the Provincial

Adjudicator.
From this decision of the DARAB petitioners commenced the present
petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioners dispute the ruling of the DARAB and assert that the subject
parcel of land is covered by OLT pursuant P.D. No. 27 and that certificates of
land transfer were issued to petitioners who were among those listed in the
masterlist of tenant-beneficiaries; that the respondents Roberta Entena, Myrna
Entena and Carlos Ruiz, Jr. never claimed that the subject parcel of land is their
retention area; that before and after October 21, 1972 when P.D. No. 27 was
promulgated up to June 1992, petitioners had been in actual tillage and
cultivation of their farmlots in the subject parcel of land; that petitioners stopped
in the tillage and cultivation of their landholdings in July 1992 because of a
"KASUNDUAN" and "DAGDAG KASUNDUAN" with respondent San Lorenzo
Development Corporation in which petitioners will plant palay three (3) times a
year at a gross income of P280,000.00 per harvest and that the market value of
the subject landholding is P24 Million but only P280,000.00 was paid on June 10,
1992 by San Lorenzo Development Corporation and failed to comply with
payment of disturbance compensation every four (4) months.
The threshold issues in this appeal may be stated as follows:

I
WHETHER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS COVERED BY P.D. NO. 27
OF OCTOBER 21, 1972 AND PETITIONERS ARE TENANT-
BENEFICIARIES THEREON WITH CERTIFICATES OF LAND TRANSFER
AWARDED TO THEM.

II
WHETHER PETITIONERS HAVE EXECUTED VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
WHICH THEREBY EXTINGUISHED WHATEVER TENANCY RELATIONS
THEY HAD OVER THE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO SEC. 8 OF R.A. 3844,
AS AMENDED,
From these threshold issues, petitioners' claim of right of retention and
nullity of the sales to respondents ICCPI and Edgardo del Fonso and Rommel M.
Leuterio thence to San Lorenzo Development Corporation are valid.
It is clear from the evidence found by the Provincial Adjudicator and
affirmed on appeal by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) that the property in dispute is not covered by OLT under P. D. No. 27,
otherwise known as the Emancipation Decree which took effect on October 21,
1972. The original owners of the property namely, Roberta Entena, Myrna
Entena and Carlos Ruiz, Jr. were found to own no other landholdings in the
Philippines except the property in dispute in which their individual share or
ownership are 4.7 has. for Roberta Entena; 2.3 has. for Anita Entena/Carlos
Ruiz, Jr.; and 1.1. ha. for Myrna Entena of the 8.1 hectares comprising the
property in dispute.
Under DAR Memorandum dated July 10, 1975 implementing P.D. No.
27, it is so provided that tenanted rice and/or corn lands with an area of seven (7)
hectares or less shall not be covered by Operation Land Transfer and the
relationship of the landowner and the tenant farmers shall be leasehold. The
property in dispute is more aptly classified as exempt area since the individual
ownership of the owners is less than seven (7) hectares each. The provision for a
retention area occurs when the aggregate landholdings of a landowner exceeded
seven (7) hectares in which the right of retention is conceded to seven (7)
hectares and the excess subject to coverage under P.D. No. 27. As earnestly
held by the DARAB:

"Antecedent facts show that the defendants-appellees ROBERTA ENTENA,

MYRNA ENTENA and CARLOS RUIZ, Jr. own no other landholdings in the
Philippines except the landholdings in controversy wherein they have been
individual owners thereof up to June 20, 1989 when they consolidated their
ownership under one title (TCT No. T-184330) and sold the same on said date
(Affidavit dated July 15, 1992 of ROBERTA ENTENA; and AFFIDAVIT dated
July 15, 1992 of ANITA ENTENA). In resume' and in conformity with
paragraph 4 of the complaint, said defendants-appellees were then individual
owners as follows:
1. ROBERTA ENTENA 4.7 hectares
2. ANITA ENTENA, CARLOS
RUIZ, JR. 2.3 hectares
3. MYRNA ENTENA 1.1 hectares
___________
8.1 hectares
xxx xxx xxx
Existing applicable law provides that tenanted rice and/or corn lands seven (7)
hectares or less shall not be covered by Operation Land Transfer and the
relation of the landowner and the tenant-farmers in these areas shall be
leasehold (DAR Memorandum dated July 10, 1975, par. 5 thereof, on the
subject: INTERIM GUIDELINES ON RETENTION BY SMALL
LANDOWNERS, implementing Presidential Decree No. 27 in conjunction with
Letter of Instructions 474 dated October 21, 1976). In the case at bar, each of
said vendors-landowners had no other landholdings throughout the
Philippines except these landholdings wherein they own an individual area of
less than seven (7) hectares each. Legally, the landholdings in controversy
are not retention areas but rather exempted areas from OLT coverage, yet it
only occurs when the aggregate landholdings of the landowner are within the
OLT coverage, in which case, the landowner is entitled to retain not more than
seven (7) hectares thereof and the remaining hectares shall be subject to
coverage and distribution to the tenant-tillers thereon. In the case at bar, these
are areas exempted from OLT coverage and said plaintiffs-appellants should
accordingly remain as leaseholders and their relationship with the landowners
is governed by the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 3844 as amended
by Republic Act No. 6389. As such leaseholders, they continued up to May 8,
1989 when they voluntarily surrendered their farmholdings and waived their
tenancy rights thereon in consideration of ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P1,620,000.00) as a disturbance
compensation thereof . . ."
(Annex "X"; pp. 464-465, Rollo)
It is worthy to note that notwithstanding their claim of issuance of
certificate of land transfer (CLT) in their favor, the petitioners failed to submit any
and merely relied on the masterlist of tenant-beneficiaries. But the masterlist,
does not prove the award of a landholding to a tenant-claimant as in fact, even a
CLT does not constitute title nor evidence of ownership to the landholding. This is
so because CLT can be cancelled at any time if the holder or grantee thereof is
found not entitled thereto. The issuance, recall or cancellation of certificates of
land transfer fall within the administrative jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary as
implementor of P.D. 27 (Tenants of the Estate of Dr. Jose Sison v. Court of
Appeals, 210 SCRA 552). It was so found by the Provincial Adjudicator and
affirmed on appeal by the DARAB that no such certificates of land transfer had
been issued to the petitioners herein to prove that they are entitled to the
ownership of their landholding as tenant beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27. It may
be true that petitioner have cultivated the property in question at one time or
another. But as the property is exempt from Operation Land Transfer under P.D.
27, any relationship that may have been generated by the possession and
cultivation of the petitioners of the land in question, is one of leasehold, which
relationship may be extinguished by voluntary surrender (Dela Cruz v. Bautista,
186 SCRA 522-523). Section 8 of Republic Act 3844, as amended by R.A. 6389,
recognizes voluntary surrender as a mode of extinguishing tenancy relationship
and which occurred in the instant case when petitioners waived or abandoned
and voluntarily surrendered the landholdings on May 8, 1989 in "KUSANG LOOB
NG PAGSASAULI NG PAGGAWA NG LUPA" written in Tagalog, a dialect known
to and spoken by the petitioners and duly acknowledged before a notary public.
This was confirmed or supported by a SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY executed by
petitioner on the same date, May 8, 1989, affirming their voluntary surrender,
waiver and abandonment of the property in question. This voluntary surrender
was coupled with payment of disturbance compensation to petitioners in
separate amounts as narrated earlier. In voluntary surrender, the actual turnover
of possession is not even necessary and the execution of a written surrender by
a tenant suffices (Jacinto v. Court of Appeals, 87 SCRA 263). There is no
consideration to be paid (Dela Cruz v. Bautista, supra), and the voluntary
surrender does not require the authorization of the court (Talavera v. Court of
Appeals, 182 SCRA 788). What is required is a mere written notice (Dela Cruz v.
Bautista, supra).
We are not persuaded by petitioners' submission that their execution
of voluntary surrender was not conscious. The voluntary surrender was written in
Tagalog, a dialect known to and spoken by them and acknowledged before a
notary public and attended with payment of disturbance compensation at
substantial amounts. It has been held that acknowledgment of an instrument
before a notary public impresses upon it full faith and credence (Realino v.
Villamor, 87 SCRA 318). Indeed, upon the execution of the voluntary surrender
on May 8, 1989, the subject property was found by the DAR Team which
conducted an ocular inspection thereon not to be tenanted and not planted to
crops which thereby shows petitioners' abandonment of the area. As correctly
found by the DARAB:

"Aside from having duly signed their individual Acknowledgment Receipts said
plaintiffs-appellants MATILDE DE JESUS and LORENZO MANGAHIS even
executed and signed their individual document of voluntary surrender entitled
KUSANG LOOB NG PAGSASAULI NG PAGGAWA SA LUPA dated May 8,
1989 duly subscribed and sworn to before a Notary Public which is marked as
ANNEX "5" and "6" (Ibid.). Much more, in a separate document entitled
SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY also dated May 8, 1989, said plaintiffs-appellants
executed and signed their names individually reiterating their voluntary
surrender and said document is marked as ANNEX "7" (Ibid.). Written in
simple terms and in a dialect known to them, they have agreed, among
others, as follows:
Na, sa katunayan, kami ay hindi maghahabol ni hindi na pupunta sa nasabing
lupa bilang upahang manggagawa o ano pa mang kalagayan may kaugnayan
sa lupa.
Having clearly understood their agreement, they have actually vacated the
landholdings and this fact was acknowledged by them in their complaint
alleging that since the panag-ulan cropping season of 1989 up to the present
date, the above-described landholdings remained idle . . .' (Complaint dated
April 16, 1991, par. 8 thereof). This fact of actual abandonment was found out
to be true when the DAR Team Office conducted its investigation and ocular
inspection finding that said landholdings were no longer tenanted and planted
to crops and the vendees were already in actual possession thereon (CASE
REPORT ON THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF ROMMEL
LEUTERIO, supra). Said plaintiffs-appellants, however, insist that they have
been in possession over the landholdings. Obviously, after having secured the
xerox copy of the Masterlist of tenant-beneficiaries showing that they are
among those listed thereon, they tried to re-enter their previous areas of
cultivation. Certainly, this re-entry was already illegal after they have already
lost or extinguished their tenancy relationship."
(Annex "X"; pp. 467-468, Rollo)
Needless to say, the findings of fact by the DARAB are supported with
substantial evidence and thus deserve the respect and acquiescence of this
Court. SaTAED

The reliance of petitioners on Torres v. Ventura, 187 SCRA 97, that

voluntary surrender is void under P.D. No. 27 is misplaced. The prohibition
applies to landholdings covered by P.D. 27. But, the disputed property is not
covered by P.D. 27 and no certificate of land transfer has ever been issued to
any of the petitioners.
And We find no basis either to petitioners' claim of redemption rights
as a result of the sale of the property to respondents ICCPP, Edgardo del Fonso
and Rommel M. Leuterio and thence to San Lorenzo Development Corporation.
As a result of voluntary surrender coupled with the fact that the subject property
is not covered under P.D. 27, petitioners do not enjoy the right of redemption.
The subsequent attempt of petitioners to re-enter the landholding after their
voluntary surrender on May 8, 1989 was illegal and affords them no relief under
the law. At the time the subject property was sold on June 20, 1989 by Roberta
Entena, Myrna Entena and Carlos Ruiz, Jr. to Edgardo del Fonso and Rommel
M. Leuterio, petitioners were no longer in the property in whatever capacity,
much more as a bona fide tenant. The same holds true when the property was
later sold by Edgardo del Fonso and Rommel Leuterio to San Lorenzo
Development Corporation. In sum, the subsequent transfers on the property from
the original owners, Roberta Entena, Myrna Entena and Carlos Ruiz, Jr. to
Edgardo del Fonso and Rommel Leuterio and thence to San Lorenzo
Development Corporation are valid and effective under the law without lien of
right of redemption by petitioners.
Finally, petitioners' assertion of a "Kasunduan" in which San Lorenzo
Development Corporation promised to pay them P280,000.00 per harvest is not
shown by the evidence and the alleged commitment of the same corporation to
pay them P24 Million is subject to that condition that petitioners are declared as
owners of the subject property in final and executory decision which they are
not. TADcCS

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in

toto.
SO ORDERED.
Imperial and Lipana-Reyes, JJ., concur.