RIZALINA GABRIEL,PETITIONER, VS. AGUSTIN MITU, MELENCIO GUTIERREZ, REYMUNDO MESINA, JUANITO CASTILLO, AND DOMINGO CUNANAN, RESPONDENTS.

3. That defendants Melencio Gutierrez and Agustin Mitu has not been paying their rentals and as of February, 1980 they had in arrears of rentals in the amount of Eighty Five (85) and fifty one (51) cavans of palay, respectively, while defendants, Reymundo Mesina, Domingo Cunanan and Juanito Castillo, has on several occasions failed to pay their respective rentals and up to the present will fail and refuse to pay the rentals when they fail due and has in fact, all defendants have not paid their rentals from the year 1980 up to the present;

4. That the defendants have abused their rights and failed in their obligation establish by law against the plaintiff in the manner of non-payment of their rentals, as a matter of fact they do not anymore notify the landowner of the date of harvesting and threshing and the rentals due the plaintiffs are appropriated by the defendants without regard to the rights of the plaintiff;

5. That plaintiff demanded from the defendants, verbally and in writing, to pay the unpaid lease rentals but despite good harvests defendants failed and refused and still fail and refuse to pay their respective rentals thereby constraining the plaintiff to file the present action for which she hired the services of a counsel in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and will incur litigation expenses in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00)

and praying for the following reliefs, viz:

1. Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiff the following amounts to wit:

Agustin Mitu –	216 cavans
Melencio Gutierrez –	288 cavans
Reymundo Mesina –	159 cavans
Juanito Castillo –	154 cavans
Domingo Cunanan –	189 cavans

2. Ordering the ejectment of the defendants for violation of law;

3. Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiff the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for and by way of attorney’s fees and One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for litigation expenses.

5. Respondents, Agustin Mitu, Melencio Gutierrez, Reymundo Mesina, Juanito Castillo and Domingo Cunanan are bonafide tenant-farmers and actual tillers of subject landholding for the past several years with knowledge and conformity of the said landowner.

6. As bonafide tenant-farmers and actual tillers respondents Agustin Mitu, Melencio Gutieres, Reymundo Mesina, Juanito Castillo and Domingo Cunanan are definitely entitled to the protective mantle of security of tenure and to the peaceful possession, occupation and cultivation of their respective landholdings, free from any form of harassment, molestation disturbance and other acts by the complainant tending to eject, oust and remove the respondents therefrom, in fact a certification was issued on September 14, 1992 by the MARO Office, Arayat, Pampanga as Annex “A” attesting the truth that the said respondents are the tenant-beneficiaries of the landholding in question.

7. Respondents Agustin Mitu, Melencio Gutierrez, Reymundo Mesina, Juanito Castillo and Domingo Cunanan have faithfully discharged their legal obligations as bonafide tenant-farmers including the payment of leasehold rentals and share rentals to the complainant as admitted by the complainant herself.

xxx

8. The complaint is bereft of any factual and legal basis, deliberately resorted to by the complaint with the malicious and unlawfully intent to unduly harass, molest and disturb the respondents Agustin Mitu, Melencio Gutierrez, Reymundo Mesina, Juanito Castillo and Domingo Cunanan in their peaceful possession, occupation and cultivation of subject landholding.

9. On account of the complainant unlawful, unwarranted and unfounded complaint respondents have suffered, and will continue to suffer sleepless rights, serious anxieties, wounded feelings, besmirched reputation, social humiliation and other similar injuries herein assessed in the sum of Two Thousand Pesos as and for moral damages.

10. To serve as a good lesson to others with similar inclination of instituting manifestly malicious and unlawful complaint, complainant should be sentenced to pay the sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages. Respondents, further have incurred and will continue to incur litigation expenses in the sum of P5,000.00 which complainant should be held liable.” (A duplicate original copy of the Answer is attached herewith as Annex “C” and made part hereof)

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiff, ordering the defendants, or anyone claiming right under them:

(1) To vacate the landholdings in question and surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff;

(2) To pay the plaintiff the following:

Agustin Mitu – 216 cavans of palay commencing 1992 and 20 cavans of palay for regular crop and 25% for the second crop thereafter until he finally vacates and possession of his landholding is surrendered to the plaintiff;

Melencio Gutierrez – 288 cavans of palay commencing 1992 and 28 cavans of palay for regular crop and 25% for the second crop thereafter until he finally vacates and possession of his landholding s surrendered to the plaintiff;

Reymundo Mesina – 159 cavans of palay commencing 1992 and 16 cavans of palay for the regular crop and 25% for the second crop thereafter until he finally vacates and possession of his landholding is surrendered to the plaintiff;

Juanito Castillo – 154 cavans of palay commencing 1992 and 16 cavans of palay for the regular crop and 25% for the second crop thereafter until he finally vacates and possession of his landholding is surrendered to the plaintiff;

Domingo Cunanan – 189 cavans of palay commencing 1992 and 18 cavans of palay for the regular crop and 25% for the second crop thereafter until he finally vacates and possession of his landholding is surrendered to the plaintiff.

(3) To pay plaintiff the sum of P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

(4) To pay the costs.

The counterclaim interposed by the defendants is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.^[6]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of 22 November 1995 is hereby REVERSED and a new one is entered ordering the defendants-appellants, or anyone claiming right under them to pay the plaintiff-appellee the following:

No costs.

SO ORDERED.^[7]

THE HONORABLE BOARD GRAVELY ERRED AND/OR ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR AND HOLDING, TO WIT:

THAT THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD PAY UNPAID RENTALS ONLY FOR THE YEARS 1989 TO 1992; AND,

THAT THE NON-PAYMENT OF RENTALS WAS NOT DELIBERATE, HENCE, RESPONDENTS SHOULD NOT BE EJECTED FROM THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDINGS.

Section 38 of Republic Act No. 3844 provides that ‘an action to enforce any cause of action under this code shall be barred if not commenced within three (3) years after such cause of action accrued.’ The law does not specifically require a judicial action, hence, it can be an administrative action Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos (Where the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish). The records show that as early as 1980, the Alcoses had sought assistance from the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, through its Attorney Reyes when they were not given a share of the fruits of the land. They were refused entry on the land in July, 1982, after it was fenced by Dolorfino. In August, 1982, they filed a letter-complaint in the Ministry of Agrarian Reform which, under the law, was the appropriate agency tasked with the function of assisting landless farmers to acquire economic family size farms, and the duty of implementing and enforcing the provisions of the Code of Agrarian Reform. The appropriate government machinery, therefore, was set in motion upon the filing of their letter-complaint seeking to enforce their rights as agricultural lessees under the code. The filing of such administrative complaint stopped the running of the prescriptive period against their causes of action for deprivation of their share of the harvests and illegal dispossession of their leasehold.

Art. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. (1973a)

Clearly, witness Servillano Ortega was well-informed that the defendants-appellants failed good harvests for five (5) years due to poor cropping. Therefore, the non-payment of lease rentals for five (5) years was not deliberate on the part of the defendants-appellants. Jurisprudence tells us that the non-payment of lease rentals, so that tenants may be ejected from their landholdings, must be deliberate. As held in Magno vs. Blanco (171 SCRA 703), since the deliberate refusal of the agricultural lessee to pay rentals for the period of two (2) years carries with it the grave penalty of forfeiture of landholdings, it is imperative under the law that every opportunity must be given the lessee the right to be heard on his side of the controversy relating to the non-payment of rentals (underscoring ours). In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint (Lorena vs. Encomienda, 302 SCRA 632). For failure of plaintiff-appellee to prove or to persuade this Board that the non-payment of lease rentals by the defendants-appellants was deliberate, We hold that ejectment of the defendants-appellants from their landholdings is not proper.^[12]