JUAN BENSON, FRANCISCO RIDERA, JACINTO PADILLA, SEVERO PADILLA, GERVACIO DACUMOS, EUGENIO BARCELONA, MAURO PERALTA, MANUEL ABAT, ALFREDO ALMODOVAR, APOLONIO CABANBAN, JUAN CATBA…

Respondent Isabelo Ocampo is the landholder of a tract of land situated in
the barrios of Talugtug and Barroro, municipalities of San Juan and Bacnotan, La
Union, respectively, with an area of about fifty (50) hectares. Petitioners Juan
Benson, Gervasio Dacumos, Francisco Ridera, Jacinto Padilla, Severo Padilla,
Eugenio Barcelona, Mauro Peralta, Manuel Abat, Alfredo Almodovar, Apolonio
Cabanban, Juan Catbagan, Juan Abad, Joaquin Abat, Lazaro Cabanban, Marcelino
Cabanban, Agustin Cabanban, Jaime Abaya, Jose Cabanban and Teofilo Cabanban, are
his tenants therein, each having a definite portion or area of said land for the
cultivation of rice, Virginia tobacco and vegetables.

On or about February 15, 1960, Ocampo filed with the Court of Agrarian
Relations, First Regional District, a complaint against said petitioners herein,
alleging, inter alia, that they had clandestinely cut down trees
(“kaingin” system) outside the portions allotted to each of them, and sold the
firewood into which said trees had been converted, as well as bamboos, without
giving him his share of the proceeds thereof; that petitioners herein and
respondents therein, had, likewise, used illegally some tillable parts of the
areas respectively assigned to them as pasture, “not only of their animals, but,
also, of others”, thus causing much damage on said land; that said petitioners
herein and respondents therein had similarly refused to give him his share in
the proceeds of the sale of vegetables planted in their respective portions as
well as violated his instructions as regards the kind of crops to be planted and
the period or season of the year when the planting should be undertaken, apart
from wilfully neglecting the use of fertilizers to bolster up increased
production; and that petitioners herein and respondents therein had, in
violation of their agreement with him, refused to flue-cure their tobacco crops
in his flue-curing barn and absconded some of their tobacco produce. Ocampo
prayed, therefore, that an interlocutory order be issued, directing that the
Virginia tobacco leaves of petitioners herein and respondents therein be
flue-cured in his flue-curing barns and then deposited in any bonded warehouse
in the locality, to be disposed of upon orders of the Court, and that, after due
hearing a decision be rendered granting him (Ocampo) the authority to eject or
dispossess them, and “that the palay now deposited with the facoma warehouse at
Bacnotan, La Union, be now liquidated.” In their answer, petitioners herein
admitted some allegations of said complaint, denied other allegations thereof,
and set-up special defenses, as well as prayed for a reliquidation of their
shares. In due course, said Court rendered a decision, the dispositive part of
which is as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court decides the case, ordering the liquidation of the palay
crops of the respondents for the year 1957, 1958 and 1959 under 30-70 sharing
basis in their favor. The petitioner in accordance with this liquidation should
pay each of the respondents their short share of the palay for said agricultural
years which are as follows: Juan Benson 6.30 baars; Francisco Ridera 4.50 baars;
Jacinto Padilla 4.50 baars; Severo Padilla 5.40 baars; Gervacion Dacumos 5.70
baars; Mauro Peralta 2.22 baars; Manuel Abat 5.40 baars; Alfredo Almodovar 1.280
oyon; Juan Cabanban 1.440 oyon; Apolonio Cabanban 1.60 baars and 1.120 oyon;
Juan Abad 4.56 baars; Joaquin Abat 76.30 capongos; Lazaro Cabanban 8.10 baars;
Marcelino Cabanban 5.40 baars; Agustin Cabanban 3 baars; Jaime Abaya 2.10 baars;
and Jose Cabanban 5.40 baars. The harvests for the year 1960, if any, shall also
be liquidated under 30-70 sharing ratio in favor of the respondents. The Court
also authorizes the petitioner to eject all the respondents from their
respective landholdings of 1 to 3 hectares each located in the barrio of
Talugtug, San Juan and barrio of Barroro, Bacnotan, both in the province of La
Union, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 22, paragraphs 3 and 4 of
Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263 and Rule 18 of the
CAF Rules of Court.”

A reconsideration of this decision having been denied, the respondents in
said action filed the present petition for review by certiorari.

The first question for determination in this appeal is whether petitioners
herein are entitled to a reliquidation of their crops beginning from the year
1954, when their tenancy relations began. The lower court ordered the
reliquidation of the crops only for the years 1957, 1958 and 1959, relying upon
Section 17 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, the pertinent part of which
reads:

“* * * 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.”

This provision 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 as determined by
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 the case at bar—the reason for the rule disappears.

At any rate, a reliquidation is sought, not only by petitioners
herein, but, also, by respondent Ocampo. Hence, even if the reliquidation
were dependent upon the right to demand a written accounting by the landholder,
the latter’s prayer for a reliquidation necessarily implied a waiver of his
right to plead the statute of limitations as regards said accounting.

Petitioners allege, also, that the lower court erred in holding that the
liquidation of the crops for 1957, 1958 and 1959 should be made on the 30-70
sharing ratio in their favor, because the property in question is second class
land, for it produces less than forty (40) cavanes of palay per hectare, and,
hence, the landholder’s share, pursuant to Section 33 of Republic Act No. 1199,
as amended, should be 25%, and that of the tenant 75%. This pretense is well
taken and respondent Ocampo admits it.

With respect to the question whether or not petitioners herein are guilty of
the irregularities charged in the complaint, the findings of His Honor, the
trial Judge, who resolved the issue in the affirmative are borne out by
substantial evidence, and, hence, should not be disturbed by this Court.

Wherefore, with the only modification that a reliquidation of the share of
the parties shall be made beginning from the year 1954 and that such
reliquidation shall be on the 25-75 sharing basis in favor of petitioners
herein, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, in all other respects,
without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.