SPOUSES ROLANDO DOLORFINO AND MONINA FULE, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SEVERO ALCOS AND EFIGENIA DE LUNA-ALCOS, RESPONDENT.

This petition for review assails the decision dated July 20, 1989
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CAR No. 17054 entitled, “Severo Alcos and Efigenia de Luna-Alcos vs.
Rolando Dolorfino and Monina
Fule,” affirming in toto
the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, City of San Pablo, in
Agrarian Case No. SP-011, which declared that a tenancy relationship exists
between the parties and ordered payment of the tenant’s share in the produce of
the land plus damages.

In 1933, the spouses Severo Alcos and Efigenia de Luna-Alcos were instituted tenants of a 26,077-square-meter
landholding in Barangay San Rafael, San
Pablo City,
covered by OCT No. F-819 (Free Patent No. [IV-5]) in the name of Prudencia Fule.  The Alcoses took possession of the land which was already
planted with coconuts.  They cleared it
and also planted coffee, lanzones, rambutan, gabi and bananas.  They had agreed with the landowner that the
latter could at anytime freely partake of the fruits and that the tenants would
have a share of one-half (1/2) of the harvested fruits plus one-seventh (1/7)
of the coconut produce, or an estimated 2,542 nuts a year at P1.00 per nut.

After Prudencia Fule’s
death, the property was inherited by her son, Jose Fule,
upon whose death the property was inherited by his son, Artemio
Fule.  After Artemio Fule’s death, the land
was inherited by Monina Fule
Dolorfino, married to Rolando Dolorfino.

The Alcoses continued to work on the
landholding.  However, in 1980, they were
informed by the Dolorfinos that the property would be
sold.  In consideration of their
consenting as tenants, to the sale, they were offered a P5 per square meter commission if they
could find a buyer for the land plus either of the following options:

(1) 180 square
meters of the Dolorfinos‘ property in Patria Village,
San Pablo City, with reimbursement for the value of the plants which they
cultivated on the landholding; or

(2) 2,000 square
meters of the San Rafael
landholding.

The Alcoses chose the second
option.  The agreement was not reduced to
writing.  Unfortunately, the intended
sale did not materialize anyway.

In February, 1980, the Dolorfinos
refused to give the Alcoses their share of the
harvest, prompting the latter to seek advice from the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform, whose Attorney Reyes inspected the
landholding, and informed the Alcoses that as
tenants, they were entitled to a one-third share of the produce.

In July 1982, the Dolorfinos fenced the
landholding, using barbed wire and bamboo posts taken from a bamboo grove on
the property.  The house of the Alcoses was fenced out and they were prohibited from
entering, or gathering the fruits of the plants, inside the fenced property.

The Alcoses filed a letter-complaint (Exh. B) in the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform, Region IV.  The Agrarian
Reform Team of San Pablo City, headed by Atty. Minas, arranged a meeting
between the parties on August 25, 1982
but the Dolorfinos did not show up.

On May 8, 1985,
the Alcoses filed Agrarian Case No. SP-011 in the Regional Trial Court (Branch 31) of San Pablo City for
illegal ejectment with damages and confirmation of
the tenancy.  The Dolorfinos denied that the Alcoses
were bona fide tenants. 
Furthermore, their cause of action, if any, had prescribed under Section
38 of R.A. 3844, because their complaint was filed more than three (3) years
after the cause of action had accrued.

The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision on September 12,
1988, ruling that a “tenancy relationship” existed between the
parties and that the “tenants” were entitled to payment of P18,563 as
their share of the produce of the land from 1980 to 1987 and P5,000 as moral
damages, attorney’s fees and costs.  The Dolorfinos were directed to reinstate the Alcoses on the landholding.

The Dolorfinos appealed the decision to
the Court of Appeals where the case was docketed as CA-G.R. CAR No. 17054.  In a decision promulgated on July 20, 1989, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto.  Hence, this petition for
review.

The petitioners allege that the respondent court erred in not
declaring that the Alcoses‘ cause of action is barred
by the Statute of Limitations, because Section 38 of R.A. 3844, as amended,
requires an action or complaint to be filed in court by or on behalf of the
tenant and no such action was filed from 1982 to 1985.

The argument has no merit.

The plaintiffs’ evidence that they were instituted by Prudencio Fule as agricultural
lessees of the land in question was not controverted
by the petitioners.  The finding to that
effect of the trial court and the appellate court, being supported by
substantial evidence, is entitled to great weight, respect and finality (People
vs. Laureta, 159 SCRA 256; Hernandez vs. Court of
Appeals, 149 SCRA 67).

Once a leasehold relation has been established, the agricultural
lessee is entitled to security of tenure. 
He has a right to continue working on the land and he may not be ejected
therefrom except for cause as provided by law (De
Jesus vs. IAC, 175 SCRA 559).

“Section 7.  Tenure of agricultural
leasehold relation. – the agricultural leasehold relation once
established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue
working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished.  The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to
security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom
unless authorized by the Court for causes herein
provided.” (Agricultural Land Reform Code, R.A. 3844).

The agricultural relationship is not
extinguished by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the
landholding.  The purchaser or transferee
is simply subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the
agricultural lessor. 
(Sec. 10, R.A. 3844.

There is no merit in the petitioners’ contention, that the
private respondents’ cause of action for illegal dispossession of their
leasehold had already prescribed when the latter filed their complaint for
reinstatement in May, 1985.

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 for illegal dispossession of their leasehold.

Even the filing of their judicial action on May 9, 1985, was done within the three year
limitation period after their ouster from the land in July, 1982 when the
petitioners constructed a barbed wire enclosure around it.  Clearly, the lessees’ right of action had not
yet then prescribed.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is denied.  The decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED, but with modification with regard to the payment by the petitioners
to the private respondents of the latter’s share of the harvests from the land
which should be computed from 1980 up to and until the possession of the
landholding is actually restored to them. 
In other respects the decision is maintained.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.