Title
Spouses Cuano vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 107159
Decision Date
Sep 26, 1994
Farmworkers, cultivating land for decades, claimed tenancy rights after landowners sold the property without notice. Court upheld their right to redeem land, prioritizing tenants over mortgage lien.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4935)

Background of the Land and Tenancy

In 1956, Andres Cruz acquired a 205,691 square meter mango plantation in Sapang, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, and by 1958, he had hired private respondents to work on the land. The private respondents were actively involved in all aspects of cultivation, including planting, fertilizing, and harvesting. After Cruz's death in 1976, his daughters became the landowners but the private respondents continued to share the harvest with them. A contract of sale was executed by Cruz's daughters in 1980, selling the land to the Cuano spouses without notifying the private respondents.

Legal Action and Claim for Redemption

Following their ousting from the land by military personnel in December 1980, the private respondents filed a complaint against Major Romy Cruz before the Court of Agrarian Relations, unaware of the sale to the Cuano spouses. Upon learning of the sale, they filed a suit for redemption, claiming their rights as tenants or agricultural lessees under R.A. No. 3844, which entitles lessees to redeem sold land without their knowledge.

Trial Court Decision

The trial court ruled in favor of the private respondents on July 5, 1989, affirming their right to redeem the property. It ordered the Cuano spouses to allow redemption within 180 days at the agreed sale price of P787,500, free from any mortgage obligations.

Court of Appeals Affirmation

On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision, asserting that the private respondents were indeed tenants entitled to redemption rights, and that the consent of the original landowner (and his heirs) could be inferred from their longstanding relationship with the land.

Contentions of the Cuano Spouses

The Cuano spouses contested the ruling, asserting that:

  1. Andres Cruz had not established a tenant relationship with private respondents as they worked only as paid laborers.
  2. The private respondents did not personally cultivate the land, which is a requirement for tenancy.
  3. The annotation on their transfer titles indicating "not tenanted" should be considered conclusive evidence of their ownership status.

Legal Definitions and Criteria

The relevant statutes define agricultural tenancy and leasehold agreements, emphasizing the need for mutual consent, the subject being agricultural land, and the requirement of personal cultivation by the tenant. The Court found that not only did private respondents fulfill these criteria, but that consent to their tenancy could be imputed based on the longstanding relationship established with the land.

Role of the Overseer

The overseer, Evaristo Erilla, acted with at least implied authority from the landowner(s) to engage the private respondents in cultivation activities. The court did not find merit in the Cuano spouses' argument that the overseer's actions absolved them of responsibility for the tenancy relationship.

Nature of Cultivation

The court expanded the definition of "cultivation" to include all activities related to the care and harvest of mango trees, asserting that the involvement of hired laborers did not negate the private respondents' status as agricultural lessees.

Impact of Title Annotation

The court determined that the annotation on the Transfer Certificates of Title, which stated that the land was not tenante

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.