Third Division

SPS. AMADEO CUAO and AURORA CUAO, Petitioners, -versusCOURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., Respondents. X X G.R. No. 107159

The Case
This is an appeal via certiorari to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals which, affirming the judgment of the trial court, held that the private respondents were tenants of the late Andres Cruz and accordingly eligible to exercise a right of redemption in respect of the land they were working on which was sold to petitioner Cuao spouses.

The Facts
The respondents were the tenants of the late Andres Cruz. After the death of the latter, the ownership of the land was passed on to his two daughters Cecilia Cruz-Mendiola and Carmen Cruz-Dolor whom without previous notification to private respondents executed a contract to sell the land to the Cuao spouses, the herein petitioner on November 8, 1980. On June 19, 1981, they consummated the sale for a total stated consideration of PhP787,500.00 again without the knowledge of the private respondents. Four days later, on June 23, 1981, spouses Cuao obtained a loan of PhP1,500,000.00 and, to secure that loan, constituted a mortgage on the subject land in favor of the lender, First Summa Savings and Mortgage Bank, now known as PAIC Savings and Mortgage Bank (PAIC). On June 24 1981, the deed of sale in favor of the Spouses Cuao was registered. On that same day, Transfer Certificates of Title covering the five (5) lots into which the original 20.5691 hectares had been divided, were issued in the name of petitioners Spouses Cuao. On November 1981, private respondents commenced suit against the Cuao spouses claiming that, as tenants or agricultural lessees they were entitled to redeem the land pursuant to Section 12 of R.A. No. 3844 ( Known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code) as amended by R.A.6389. On July 5, 1989, the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the private respondents and said judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its entirety, hence the herein petition for review.

The Issues
1.
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS AN EXISTING SHARE TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LEASE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LANDOWNER(S) AND PRIVATE RESPONDENTS?; WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS AN ELEMENTS OF PERSONAL CULTIVATION BY THE TENANTS OR AGRICUTURAL LESSEES, CONSIDERING THAT THE ALLEGED TENANTS HAD AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THE SERVICES OF THE PAID LABORERS TO CARRY OUT SOME FARM OPERATIONS?; WHETHER OR NOT THE ANNOTATION IN THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS THAT THE LAND WAS NOT TENANTED, WAS CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT NO TENANCY OR AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATIONSHIP EXISTED IN RESPECT OF SUCH LAND?

2.

3.

The Courts Ruling

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that all the elements of a share tenancy an agricultural lease relationship existed between the landowner(s) and private respondents and that accordingly, private respondents were share tenants and later agricultural lessees of Andres Cruz and later of his two daughters and ultimately of petitioners Cuao spouses. As to the issue of whether there is a personal cultivation, the Supreme Court rules that the fact that the tenant did not do all the farm work himself but temporarily or on an emergency basis utilized the service of the others to assist him, was not taken to mean that the tenant had thereby breached the requirement imposed by the statute. As to the issue of the conclusiveness of the annotation, the Supreme Court believed and held that such annotation cannot be regarded as conclusive upon the courts of justice as to the legal nature and incidents of the relationship between the landowner(s) in this case and private respondents. And finally, to the right to redeem the land involved, in view of the Supreme Court conclusion that private respondents were share tenants and later agricultural lessees of the owner(s) of that land, it follows that private respondents were entitled to redeem the land upon the alienation thereof by the two daughters of Andres Cruz in favor of the herein petitioner. The right of redemption is statutory in character, that is to say, it is created by and rests upon the provisions of a particular law. It attaches to a particular landholding by operation of law. (Hidalg0 v. Hidalgo 33 SCRA 105, 1970)

Camarines Norte School of Law

Brgy. Itomang, Talisay, Camarines Norte

Social Science 6
Submitted by:

Liza Y. Carillo Lovely Borela Anna Corina Belaos Jocelyn Zabala

Ma. Celia De Jesus

Instructress