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

Gabriel versus Mitu

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Rizalina Gabriel, a landholder in Arayat, Pampanga, against five of her tenant-farmers: Agustin Mitu, Melencio Gutierrez, Reymundo Mesina, Juanito Castillo, and Domingo Cunanan. Gabriel sued to collect years of unpaid leasehold rentals and to eject the tenants from her land. The case matters because it draws a precise line on prescription of agrarian rental claims and restates the rule that non-payment of rentals, to justify ejectment, must be deliberate.

Procedural History

Gabriel filed her complaint on August 12, 1992 with the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of Pampanga. On November 22, 1995, Provincial Adjudicator Toribio Ilao, Junior rendered judgment for Gabriel, ordering the tenants to vacate the landholdings, to pay their arrears in cavans of palay, to pay attorney's fees of 5,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. The tenants appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. On November 17, 2003, the Board reversed the Provincial Adjudicator. It ordered the tenants to pay rentals only for the years 1989 to 1992, and it refused to eject them. Gabriel's motion for reconsideration was denied on May 21, 2004. She then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

The five respondents had been Gabriel's tenant-farmers on her landholdings in Plasang Luma, Arayat, Pampanga, with tenancy rights established as early as 1943 and as late as 1963. In 1973 they agreed in writing to pay annual rentals in cavans of palay for the regular crop, plus a percentage share for the second crop.

In February 1980, Gabriel filed a complaint with the Department of Agrarian Reform against Mitu and Gutierrez for non-payment of rentals. As a result, those two executed a written acknowledgement of indebtedness, the patutu karing cautangan, admitting arrears of 51 cavans and 85 cavans respectively. From 1980 onward, save for the years covered by receipts, the tenants stopped paying rentals, accumulating arrears of 216 cavans for Mitu, 288 for Gutierrez, 159 for Mesina, 154 for Castillo, and 189 for Cunanan. Gabriel demanded payment, verbally and in writing, but the tenants refused.

At the trial, Gabriel's own collector and overseer, Sevillano Ortega, testified that the tenants stopped paying because of small harvests for about five years. The Board relied on this testimony to hold that the non-payment was not deliberate.

Issues

• Whether or not Gabriel's claim for arrears corresponding to crop years 1980 to 1988 is barred by prescription.
• Whether or not the failure of the respondents to pay their rentals was due to poor harvest.
• Whether or not the ejectment of the respondents was in order.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1155 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 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.

This provision governs whether Gabriel's old claims survived, because the filing of the 1980 complaint and the written acknowledgement of debt may have interrupted prescription.

Section 38 of Republic Act Number 3844, as quoted in the decision, provides:

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.

This is the three-year prescriptive period the Board applied to bar the pre-1989 arrears.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court answered in a qualified manner. Prescription did not bar the claim against Mitu and Gutierrez, because the 1980 complaint in the Department of Agrarian Reform interrupted prescription, amounting to a written demand, and because they executed a written acknowledgement of debt. As to Mesina, Castillo, and Cunanan, who were not involved in the 1980 case, the claim for arrears before 1989 was barred. The Court quoted Article 1155 of the Civil Code as the basis for interruption.

On the second issue, the Court rejected Gabriel's objection that Ortega's testimony was hearsay. Ortega was her own collector and overseer, testifying from personal knowledge, and the Court presumed he performed his duties faithfully. The Board's finding that the tenants failed to pay because of poor harvests stood.

On the third issue, the Court held that ejectment was not proper. Non-payment of rentals, to justify ejectment, must be deliberate, and Gabriel failed to prove this by substantial evidence. The Court respected the tenants' security of tenure.

Doctrine

A claim for leasehold rentals under Republic Act Number 3844 is barred if not commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued. The filing of an administrative complaint before the Department of Agrarian Reform, and the debtor's written acknowledgement of the debt, interrupt prescription under Article 1155 of the Civil Code, but only as to the tenants involved in that complaint or acknowledgement. Non-payment of leasehold rentals, to warrant ejectment, must be deliberate; the landholder bears the burden of proving this by substantial evidence.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the Board's decision as to Mesina, Castillo, and Cunanan, but modified it as to Mitu and Gutierrez by reinstating the Provincial Adjudicator's 1995 decision, deleting only the portion ordering their ejectment.

Remember This

Memorize this line: non-payment of rentals, to justify ejectment of a tenant, must be deliberate. Examiners use this case to test prescription of agrarian claims and the interruption of prescription by administrative demand and written acknowledgement of debt.