Professional Documents
Culture Documents
QUIASON, J.:
In this appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of
Appeals in AC-G.R. SP No. 20551 entitled "Ernesto N. San
Joaquin, et al., v. Hon. Benjamin V. Panga, et al.," this Court is
asked to decide whether the expropriation of agricultural lands
by local government units is subject, to the prior approval of
the Secretary of the Agrarian Reform, as the implementator of
the agrarian reform program.
On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. 129, Series
of 1988, authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or
expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site, in
order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional
agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial
government employees.
The "WHEREAS" clause o:f the Resolution states:
WHEREAS, the province of Camarines Sur has adopted a fiveyear Comprehensive Development plan, some of the vital
components of which includes the establishment of model and
pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops,
soil testing and tissue culture laboratory centers, 15 small
scale technology soap making, small scale products of plaster
of paris, marine biological and sea farming research center,and
other progressive feasibility concepts objective of which is to
provide the necessary scientific and technology know-how to
farmers and fishermen in Camarines Sur and to establish a
housing project for provincial government employees;
The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court,
allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of
private respondents' lands and the order denying the
admission of the amended motion to dismiss. It also ordered
the trial court to suspend the expropriation proceedings until
after the Province of Camarines Sur shall have submitted the
requisite approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to
convert the classification of the property of the private
respondents from agricultural to non-agricultural land.
WHEREFORE . . . .
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review[1] dated December 6, 1996
assailing the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court[3] dated
July 5, 1996 which ordered the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) and petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank)
to pay private respondents the amount of P30.00 per square
meter as just compensation for the States acquisition of
private respondents properties under the land reform program.
The facts follow.
xxxx
Thus, the trial did not err in taking cognizance of the case as
the determination of just compensation is a function addressed
to the courts of justice.
Land Banks contention that the property was acquired for
purposes of agrarian reform on October 21, 1972, the time of
the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just compensation should be
based on the value of the property as of that time and not at
the time of possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office
of the President, Malacaang, Manila v. Court of Appeals,[21]
we ruled that the seizure of the landholding did not take place
on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take effect on the
payment of just compensation.
SUNTAY III,
Petitioners,
- versusLAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
November 20,
2006
x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
the petition
is
DENIED. Costs
against
SO ORDERED.
JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, in her
capacity as Assignee of FEDERICO
C. SUNTAY, NENITA SUNTAY
TAEDO and EMILIO A.M.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court assails the October 27, 2005 Amended
Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77530,
which vacated its May 26, 2004 Decision affirming (a) the
Order of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro, Branch 46, acting as Special Agrarian Court, in
Agrarian Case Nos. R-1339 and R-1340, dated March 31,
2003 directing respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
to deposit the provisional compensation as determined by the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD); (b) the May
26, 2003 Resolution denying LBPs motion for reconsideration;
and (c) the May 27, 2003 Order requiring Teresita V. Tengco,
LBPs Land Compensation Department Manager, to comply
with the March 31, 2003 Order.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee[2] of
Federico C. Suntay over certain parcels of agricultural land
located at Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, with an
area of 3,682.0285 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. T-31 (T-1326)[3] of the Registry of Deeds of
Occidental Mindoro. In 1972, a portion of the said property
with an area of 311.7682 hectares, was placed under the land
reform program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (1972)
[4] and Executive Order No. 228 (1987).[5] The land was
thereafter subdivided and distributed to farmer beneficiaries.
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the LBP fixed
the value of the land at P5,056,833.54 which amount was
deposited in cash and bonds in favor of Lubrica.
On the other hand, petitioners Nenita Suntay-Taedo
and Emilio A.M. Suntay III inherited from Federico Suntay a
parcel of agricultural land located at Balansay, Mamburao,
Occidental Mindoro covered by TCT No. T-128[6] of the
Register of Deeds of Occidental Mindoro, consisting of two
lots, namely, Lot 1 with an area of 45.0760 hectares and Lot 2
containing an area of 165.1571 hectares or a total of 210.2331
hectares. Lot 2 was placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27
but only 128.7161 hectares was considered by LBP and valued
the same at P1,512,575.05.
Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties,
hence the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(PARAD) conducted summary administrative proceedings for
determination of just compensation. On January 29, 2003, the
PARAD fixed the preliminary just compensation at
P51,800,286.43 for the 311.7682 hectares (TCT No. T-31) and
P21,608,215.28 for the 128.7161 hectares (TCT No. T-128).[7]
1,455,207.31
Pedro L. Yap
135,482.12
15,914,127.77
AMADCOR;
c)
The DAR-designated bank is ordered to allow the
petitioners to withdraw the above-deposited amounts without
prejudice to the final determination of just compensation by the
proper authorities; and
d)
Respondent DAR is ordered to 1) immediately
conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the
just compensation for the lands of the petitioners giving the
petitioners 15 days from notice within which to submit evidence
and to 2) decide the cases within 30 days after they are
submitted for decision. 4
Likewise, petitioners seek the reversal of the Resolution dated
January 18, 1995, 5 denying their motion for reconsideration.
xxx
xxx
(e)
Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding
payment or, in case of rejection or no response from the
landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank
designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP
bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take
immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper
Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. . . . (emphasis
supplied)
In the present suit, the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of its
power to enact rules and regulations when it issued
Administrative Circular No. 9. There is no basis in allowing the
opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as
compensation for his property because, as heretofore
discussed, Section 16(e) of RA 6657 is very specific that the
deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds". In the
same vein, petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. 29, 29A and 54 because these implementing regulations cannot
outweigh the clear provision of the law. Respondent court
therefore did not commit any error in striking down
Administrative Circular No. 9 for being null and void.
Proceeding to the crucial issue of whether or not private
respondents are entitled to withdraw the amounts deposited in
trust in their behalf pending the final resolution of the cases
involving the final valuation of their properties, petitioners
assert the negative.
The contention is premised on the alleged distinction between
the deposit of compensation under Section 16(e) of RA 6657
and payment of final compensation as provided under Section
18 21 of the same law. According to petitioners, the right of the
landowner to withdraw the amount deposited in his behalf
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx