PEDRO DAHIL, PETITIONER-APPELLANTS, V.S. ANTONIO CRISPIN, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

For about five  years  up to the  riling of the   original complaint   in this case,   on  February 19,   1953,  Pedro Dahil, the herein petitioner, was the   tenant  of Antonio Crispin, the  herein respondent,   on an   agricultural land  located at barrio Santiago, municipality of Botolon,  province  of Zambales..   In the   agricultural  year of 1950-1951,   the land produced 42  caverns of  palay,   from which 2  cavans were   taken by the   respondent  In payment  of the   2 cavans  of seedlings used  for   that   year.    When the 40  cavans were   to be   divided, the petitioner demanded from the  respondent that  the division be made   on  the   basis  of   75-25% in his favor,   in accordance with Sections   7 and 8  of Act No.  4054,   in   view of the  fact that  there  was no previous written agreement between  the parties  and principally because   the  tenant  furnished the necessary implements  and work animals and defrayed all the expenses  for planting and cultivation  of   the  land.     The respondent did not  agree  to this demand,   and  the  petitioner, for  fear  of being  ejected  from the  land by the respondent, yielded to the  wishes of the latter and the  crop was  divided on  a  50-50 basis,   to wit:   20 cavans  for the  petitioner and  20  cavans for  the respondent.     In the  agricultural   year 1951-1952,  he  continued working  on the land which produced 51 cavans   and 4-1/2 gantas  of  palay  in  that   year.    When   tills last crop was to be divided,   a dispute  arose again ac  to the share each  should receive,   hence,  the   petitioner Initiated this  case   to  secure  his lawful share In both  crops   of  1951-1951  and  1951-1952.    Before  the trial of the case,   the liquidation  of the  crop  of 1951-1952 was  amicably settled, thus the  case was tried only with regard  to  the reliquidation  of  the 1950-1951 crop.

After  the trial,   the  Court  of Industrial  Relations,   in a decision penned by the Hon. Associate Judge  V. Jimenez Yanson, denied the  reliquidation prayed for by the   petitioner. Immediately thereafter   the  latter filed a motion for reconsideration alleging  that the   decision  is contrary to law,  but the  Court of Industrial Relations  sitting  in banc affirmed .the   decision  on the ground   that  there was no  sufficient   justification for  altering   or modifying  it.    Hence, this appeal on  the  ground  that the  lower  court  erred  (l)  in denying the  reliquidation of   the net harvest  during  the agricultural year 1950-1951  illegally divided between  the ten suit-petitioner and landlord-respondent;   (2 )   in not  finding  the   provisions  of  Act No.  4054.   as amended,   regarding the  apportionment   of  the shares between the   landlord and the  tenant   as mandatory;  and   (3)   in not  finding   the   proportion of   shares for  the   tenant  and the landlord established In Act No.  4054,  as amended,   a  right granted by statute  and as  such right prescribes   only after the lapse  of   ten  (10) years.

In denying  the petition,   the lower court  ruled that the   crop for  the  year 1950-1951 had been divided long before the  tenant filed his   complaint;   that  to permit the re liquidation prayed  for by the petitioner would be   opening  the  door to  further confusion in  the  relationship  of  the parties herein;  that the  petitioner had long   slept on his right; and   that the  grievances,  if  any,   should have been brought to  the’ attention of   the  court immediately after his   harvest of the  crop in question,  and for him to bring the   same after the lapse   of an duller agricultural year was too late. It  appears,  however,  that the petition was filed in the month of   February of 1952 and that  only one agricultural year had  elapsed from the  time   the   crop  of 1950-1951 was divided between   the parties  in March 7  1951″    There   is, therefore, no unreasonable  delay on  the part   of the petitioner in bringing   the   action “and  the lower court was not justified in  concluding that petitioner’s action has prescribed because  of  Ms inaction for nearly a year. Besides, Act No.  4054,   as  amen do d,   contain no provision as  to prescription  of   action that may  arise  thereunder and consequently Art,   1145  of   the now Civil  Code, which provides that  action based upon  oral contract  can be  filed  within six  years,   nay be  applicable   to the  present  case.

On the   other hand,  Section  8 of Act No.  4054,   as amended by Republic  Act 3STo»   34—clearly provides that  “in the  absence  of   any written   agreement  to  the contrary and when   the  tenant  furnished the necessary implements and work animals and defrays all the   expenses for planting and cultivation of the   land,   the  crop  shall be  divided as follows: xxx 75% for  the  tenant   and  25% for the landlord in case  of loud the   average normal production of which  is not more   than 40 cavans of  palay par  one   cavan   of seeds. This  provision of  law is  completely applicable  to  the  case at bar and the  40 cavans of palay in question should have been divided in   accordance therewith to wit.” 30 cavans for  the petitioner  and 10 cavans for the   respondent. Consequently,   the latter who received  20 cavans,   or more  than what the law authorizes, is bound to return 10 cavans  to the petitioner to  complete   the latter’s shore  in accordance with  the   aforequoted provision of law. Moreover, under Section 7 of the  aforementioned Act No.  4054, as  amended by Commonwealth Act No. 78 and Section  3 of Republic Act No. 34, the tenant should receive nab  less than   55%  of the net produce and  that any stipulation between the  landlord and  the tenant  to the  contrary is declared to be against public policy. The petitioner herein was given in  ti& partition  complained of a share less 55%, so  it is very clear that the  policy of the law was  violated and, therefore,   the herein petitioner has right to the reliquidation sought for in the petition and to  claim  the 10 cavans the respondent received in received of  his lawful   share.

“WHEREFORE,   the decision appealed  from is hereby reversed and the respondent Antonio Crispin  ordered to deliver to the petitioner the” ten  cavans of palay prayed for in  the petition and  to pay  the   costs,

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur