G.R. No. L-62626 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-62626, July 18, 1984

Spouses Cayetano and Patricia Tiongson, etc.

vs CA and Teodoro Macaya

Ponente: Gutierrez

Facts:

1946, Severino Manotok donated and transferred to his 8 children and 2 grandchildren a 34 hectare land in Quezon City. Severino Manotok was appointed judicial guardian of his minor children. There was no tenant occupying the property at the time of the donation.

Later, Teodoro Macaya accompanied Vicente Herrera, the overseer of the property, went to the Manotok and pleaded that he be allowed to live in the property to prevent theft and to guard the property. Manotok allowed Macaya but imposed the condition that any time the owners needed to take the property, Macaya and his family must vacate, and that he could raise animals and plant according to his needs, and that the owners have no responsibility to Macaya and he will use only 3 hectares. These conditions were not put in writing.

In 1950, the property owners organized themselves as a corporation and transferred the 34 hectare land a capital contribution to the capital stock of the corporation. Later, when the owners demanded for payment of taxes, Macaya agreed to help pay the taxes by remitting 10 cavans of palay every year as his contribution. Later, owners requested Macaya to increase his contribution to 20 cavans, Macaya agreed. Later, Macaya pleaded that he will contribute 10 cavans only, the owners said the "he might as well not deliver anymore". Macaya did not deliver palays from then on.

1974, the owners executed a Unilateral Deed of Conveyance of the property to Patricia Tiongson, etc. Macaya was informed that the land is needed for house construction of the owners and was asked to vacate, Macaya pleaded that he may be allowed to harvest first before vacating. However, after harvest, Macaya did not vacate and even expand his cultivation to 6 hectares without the consent of the owners.

Issue: Whether there is tenancy relationship between the parties.

Ruling:

Real estate taxes of the property declare the land as residential. The physical view of the property also shows that the land was a rolling forestal land without any flat portion except the one tilled by Macaya.

As to the sharing, the decision of the petitioners not to ask for anymore contributions from Macaya reveals that there was no tenancy relationship ever agreed upon by the parties. Neither can such relationship be implied from the facts as there was no agreed system of sharing the produce of the property. Moreover, from 1946 to 1956 at which time, Macaya was also planting rice, there was no payment whatsoever. At the most and during the limited period when it was in force, the arrangement was a civil lease where the lessee for a fixed price leases the property while the lessor has no responsibility whatsoever for the problems of production and enters into no agreement as to the sharing of the costs of fertilizers, irrigation, seedlings, and other items. 

As to consent, the lot was taxed as residential land in a metropolitan area. There was clearly no intention on the part of the owners to devote the property for agricultural production but only for residential purposes. Thus, together with the third requisite, the fourth requisite which is the purpose was also not present.

There was no agreement as to any system of sharing the produce of the land. The petitioners did not get anything from the harvest and private respondent Macaya was using and cultivating the land free from any charge or expense.