JOSE B. YUSAY, PETITIONER, VS. JUANITO TUGBA, ABRAHAM RUBI AND HON. PASTOR P. REYES, AS ASSOCIATE JUDGE PRESIDING THE EIGHT REGIONAL DISTRICT OF COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF B…

Petition for review by certiorari of the decision of the Court of Agrarian
Relations.

The facts are: Sometime in March 1958 tenants Juanito Tugba and Abraham Rubi
filed in the Court of Agrarian Relations against landholder Jose B. Yusay
separate petitions seeking reliquidation of their respective palay produce for
the agricultural years 1952-53 to 1956-57, inclusive (Annexes A and B). It was
specifically alleged that they did not receive their entire share of the produce
for each cf those years and therefore prayed that Yusay be ordered to pay the
difference. In his answers (Annexes C and D) to the petitions, Yusay put up the
affirmative defense, among others, that Tugba and Rubi’s causes of action had
prescribed. Upon agreement of the parties, the two cases were heard jointly. On
October 24, 1959 the court promulgated a single decision which, after finding
that Yusay had “short-shared” his two tenants by 10% of the produce for the
years 1952-53 to 1956-57, ordered him to pay them the corresponding undelivered
portions, and dismissed Rubi and Tugba’s claims for recovery of alleged
overpayments of loans as well as Yusay’s counterclaim for damages and attorney’s
fees. The decision did not touch upon the issue oi prescription.

In his motion for reconsideration of the decision (Annex F), Yusay called the
attention of the court to the affirmative defense of prescription. The court
denied the motion on.the ground that prescription did not lie because the right
of action to demand a written accounting is different from reliquidation of
harvests or crops.

Yusay filed the present petition for review, raising as sole issue whether or
not the cause of action of respondents Tugba and Rubi had prescribed.
Essentially, the issue is whether or not an action to demand a written
accounting is the same as an action for reliquidation.

Petitioner claims that they are one and the same, and and relying on the
provisions of Section 17, Republic Act No. 1199, which states that:

“In the absence of a written accounting in accordance with the preceding
paragraph, the tenant may, within three years from the date of the threshing of
the crop in question, petition the Court to compel the landholder to render an
accounting of the same in accordance with this section,”

argues that respondents’ cause of action in so far as the agricultural years
1952-53 to 1954-55 are concerned had already prescribed. If an action for
reliquidation is equivalent to a suit for accounting under the aforequoted
provision of law, then the plea of prescription is in order.

However, this Court, in a recent decision, has defined the difference between
reliquidation and accounting thus:

“This provision (Section 17, R.A. 1199) refers, however, to the
right to demand a written accounting, which—petitioners maintain—is
different from a reliquidation. Indeed, an accounting between a landowner
and an agricultural tenant is a statement made by the former of the
contributions made by both, the expenses incurred, the amount harvested, the
sharing system followed by the parties and the share actually received by each.
Upon the other hand, a reliquidation involves the determination, based either
upon the accounting made by the landholder, or upon the facts and determined bv
the court, of the share to which each party is entitled. The period within which
an accounting may be demanded is limited to three (3) years, for the lawmaker
evidently deems it unreasonable to expect or require the landholder to remember
distinctly or keep a complete record of the pertinent items for a longer period
of time. When such items are not disputed, and the only issue refers to the
proportion in which the net produce shall be divided—and such is the situation
obtaining in tho case at bar—the reason for the rule disappears.” (Benson, et
al., vs. Ocampo, L-18189, December 29, 1962).

The Agricultural Tenancy Act (Republic Act No. 1199) provides a
prescriptive period for accounting suite only but makes no mention of the period
within which an action for reliquidation may be brought. Consequently, we have
to rely on the Civil Code provisions on prescription. If not appearing that
there was a written contract between the parties, respondents’ actions prescribe
within six years (Article 1145 (1), new civil code). Respondents, therefore,
instituted their respective suits well within the period.

The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
petitioner.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Regala,
JJ., concur.,