This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-08-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The alleged oral agreement between petitioner and Sarmiento, even if it were proven, cannot justify petitioner's action. Not only is an agreement limiting the period of tenancy prejudicial to the tenant's right to security of tenure, and therefore expressly prohibited by Section 16[24] of Rep. Act No. 3844, Section 31[25] in relation to Section 36 also makes unlawful any act of dispossession based on those agreements. As we held in Datu v. Hon. Cabañgon,[26] Section 49 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act,[27] from which the present provisions of Section 36 of Rep. Act No. 3844 were taken, does not allow the parties to stipulate at what future time the tenant will leave or surrender the landholding he cultivates. | |||||