SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 258043. February 14, 2022.]
HEIRS OF GREGORIO ENRIQUEZ, NAMELY: OFELLIA C. CATANGHAL, AMELIA E. LIZARONDO, MERCEDES E. SIDORA, CORAZON E. MANALO, ZENAIDA E. MERCADO, EUGENIA E. GREGORIO, LETICIA S. ENRIQUEZ, and HILARIA G. ENRIQUEZ, petitioners,vs. LOURDES PUNZALAN and ELPIDIO CASTILLO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 February 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 258043 (Heirs of Gregorio Enriquez, namely: Ofellia C. Catanghal, Amelia E. Lizarondo, Mercedes E. Sidora, Corazon E. Manalo, Zenaida E. Mercado, Eugenia E. Gregorio, Leticia S. Enriquez, and Hilaria G. Enriquez v. Lourdes Punzalan and Elpidio Castillo). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated May 20, 2021 and the Resolution 3 dated October 19, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 165075, for failure of petitioners Ofellia C. Catanghal, Amelia E. Lizarondo, Mercedes E. Sidora, Corazon E. Manalo, Zenaida E. Mercado, Eugenia E. Gregorio, Leticia S. Enriquez, and Hilaria G. Enriquez (petitioners) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that their cause of action to claim disturbance compensation had already prescribed.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners' complaint for disturbance compensation was already barred by prescription. Pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, 4 as Amended, disturbance compensation is granted to an agricultural lessee or tenant in situations where his peaceful enjoyment and possession of the land is disturbed or interrupted by the owner/lessor thereof. 5 The law requires that an action to enforce any cause of action thereunder shall be barred if not commenced within three (3) years after the cause of action accrued. 6 The prescriptive period for the filing of a complaint for disturbance compensation should be reckoned from the time the tenant lost possession of the disputed property. 7 In this case, it was established by the evidence on record that petitioners have not been in actual possession of the disputed property since they abandoned the same in 2000. 8 Petitioners likewise failed to prove that they, as purported tenants, continued tilling the land and paying for its lease since that time. 9 Accordingly, petitioners' cause of action had already prescribed when they initiated the present case in 2012. 10 It bears stressing that the Court generally accords respect, if not finality, to the factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies, especially when affirmed by the CA, 11 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated December 22, 2021. Rollo, pp. 34-41.
2.Id. at 8-19. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and Carlito B. Calpatura, concurring.
3.Id. at 22-26.
4. Entitled 'AN ACT TO ORDAIN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE AND TO INSTITUTE LAND REFORMS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INCLUDING THE ABOLITION OF TENANCY AND THE CHANNELING OF CAPITAL INTO INDUSTRY, PROVIDE FOR THE NECESSARY IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES, APPROPRIATE FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' approved on August 8, 1963.
5. See Pagtalunan v. Tamayo, 262 Phil. 267, 272-273 (1990). See also Section 36 of R.A. 3844.
6. See Sec. 38 of R.A. 3844.
7. See Bunye v. Aquino, 396 Phil. 533, 545 (2000).
8.Rollo, p. 15.
9.Id. at 16.
10.Id.
11. See NGEI Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. v. Filipinas Palmoil Plantation, Inc., 697 Phil. 433, 444 (2012).