Republic
of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
Petitioner, Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
-
versus - Chairperson,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
JOSEFINA
R. DUMLAO, NACHURA,
and
A.
FLORENTINO R. DUMLAO, REYES, JJ.
JR.,
STELLA DUMLAO-ATIENZA,
and
NESTOR R. DUMLAO,
represented
by Attorney-In-Fact, Promulgated:
A.
Florentino R. Dumlao, Jr.,
Respondents.
November 27, 2008
x - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
REYES, R.T., J.:
IN
determining just compensation for lands covered by the government’s Operation
Land Transfer, which law applies – Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27[1] or
Republic Act (RA) No. 6657[2]
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform (CARP) Law?
This and
other related questions are brought to the Court via this petition for review
on certiorari[3] of
the Decision[4] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) granting each of respondents a five-hectare retention
area and ordering petitioner to pay them One Hundred Nine Thousand Pesos (P109,000.00)
per hectare for the excess of the retained area.
The Facts
Respondents Josefina R. Dumlao, A.
Florentino R. Dumlao, Jr., Stella Dumlao-Atienza, and Nestor R. Dumlao, heirs
of the deceased Florentino G. Dumlao, were the co-owners of several parcels of
agricultural land with an aggregate area of 32.2379 hectares situated at
Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya.
The properties are covered by: (1) Transfer
Certificate of Title (
The properties were placed under
Operation Land Transfer by the Department of Agrarian Reform (
Pursuant to PD No. 27 and Executive
Order (EO) No. 228,[11] a
preliminary valuation was made by the
On
In its Answer,
the
Petitioner,
which was impleaded as defendant in the valuation case before the trial court,
likewise filed its Answer, raising a similar line of defense.[20] Petitioner added that while payment for the
properties covered by
After
the termination of pre-trial conference, respondent Atty. A. Florentino Dumlao,
Jr. submitted his affidavit on which he was cross-examined. Following the submission of their testimonial
and documentary evidence, respondents rested their case.
Upon motion of respondents, the
The
evidences submitted by the parties as well as those gathered by the undersigned show that only two (2) parcels of land were valued under Presidential
Decree No. 27. The parcels of land are located in Nagbitin, Villaverde, Nueva
Vizcaya and per Exhibit “O,” the unirrigated riceland in Nagbitin are
considered first class agricultural lands. Under Tax Ordinance No. 96-45
adopting and authorizing the 1996 Schedule of Fair Market Values for the
Different Classes of Real Property in Nueva Vizcaya (Exhibit “G” and Exhibit
“G-1”) the market value of first class unirrigated Riceland in the Municipality
of Villaverde is P109,000.00 Per Department Order No. 56-97 dated P60.00/square
meter.
In summary,
the undersigned believes that the valuation of respondents Land Bank of the
Philippines and the Department of Agrarian Reform is not commensurate to the
definition of just compensation x x x.[23]
RTC Ruling
On
WHEREFORE,
the Court hereby orders the remand of the case with respect to
SO ORDERED.[25]
Respondents moved for
reconsideration. Consequently, on
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, in the higher interest of justice, the Court MODIFIES its
SO ORDERED.[27]
Instead of adducing additional
evidence, respondents filed a
motion for reconsideration of the trial
court’s P109,000.00
per hectare, the market value of the properties, as just compensation.[28] Accordingly, the trial court, on
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court hereby sets the just compensation in the amount
of P6,912.50 per hectare for lot covered by
SO ORDERED.[30]
CA Disposition
Dissatisfied
with the
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the trial court’s decision is hereby
MODIFIED. The plaintiffs-appellants’ right of retention is recognized. Plaintiffs-appellants Josefina, A. Florentino,
Jr. and Stella, all surnamed Dumlao are each entitled to retain five (5)
hectares pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 6657.
The excess in area after application of the right of retention is valued
at One Hundred Nine Thousand (P109,000.00) Pesos per hectare with
interest at the prevailing rate from the time of taking until fully paid.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.[32]
The CA declared that the definite
time of the actual taking of the subject properties is not certain.[33] Further, there is no doubt that the transfer
of the subject landholdings is governed by PD No. 27.[34] However, after the passage of RA No. 6657, the
formula relative to valuation under PD No. 27 no longer applies.[35] The appellate court held:
The trial
court, therefore, in the determination of just compensation is not confined
within the valuation provisions of P.D. 27. It can depart from it so long as the valuation
assigned on the land transferred is within the meaning of the phrase “just
compensation” provided for in J.M. Tuazon
Co. vs. Land Tenure Administration (31 SCRA 413).[36]
Relying
on the Commissioner’s Report, the CA assigned the lower value of P109,000.00
per hectare as just compensation for the subject properties.[37]
Issues
Petitioner
bank has resorted to the present recourse, imputing to the CA the following
errors:
A.
WHEN THE CHALLENGED DECISION
ADHERED TO THE COMMISSIONER’S REPORT P109,000.00
B.
WHEN THE CHALLENGED DECISION
DECLARED THAT
C.
WHEN THE CHALLENGED DECISION
DECLARED THAT RESPONDENTS’ ENTIRE LANDHOLDINGS
Our Ruling
The just compensation due to respondents should be determined under the
provisions of RA No. 6657.
Petitioner asserts that since the
properties were acquired pursuant to PD No. 27, the formula for computing just
compensation provided by said decree and EO No. 228 should apply. Respondents, on the other hand, insist on the
application of RA No. 6657 with respect to the computation.
Petitioner is mistaken. The 1987 Constitution, specifically Article
XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights, mandates the State’s adoption of an
agrarian reform program for the benefit of the common people.[39] The recognition of the need for genuine land
reform, however, started earlier. PD No.
27, issued on
The agrarian reform thrust was
further energized with the enactment of EO No. 228 on
When the Philippine Congress was
formally reorganized, RA No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, was immediately enacted. It was signed by President Corazon Aquino on
presidential issuances, including PD No. 27 and EO No. 228, nevertheless gave
them suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its
provisions.[43]
On one hand, PD No. 27 provides the formula
to be used in arriving at the exact total cost of the acquired lands:[44]
For the
purpose of determining the cost of the land to be transferred to the
tenant-farmer pursuant to this Decree, the
value of the land shall be equivalent to two and one half (2-1/2) times the
average harvest of three normal crop years immediately preceding the
promulgation of this Decree.
The total
cost of the land, including interest at the rate of six (6) per centum per
annum, shall be paid by the tenant in fifteen (15) years of fifteen (15) equal
annual amortizations. (Emphasis
supplied)
Implementing the formula under PD No.
27, EO No. 228 states:
SECTION 2.
Henceforth, the valuation of rice and corn lands covered by P.D. No. 27 shall
be based on the average gross production determined by the Barangay Committee on Land Production in
accordance with Department Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973 and
related issuances and regulation of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The
average gross production per hectare shall be multiplied by two and a half
(2.5), the product of which shall be multiplied by Thirty-Five Pesos (P35.00),
the government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay on P31.00), the government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos
of corn on
Thus, under PD No. 27 and EO No. 228,
the formula for computing the Land Value (LV) or Price Per Hectare (PPH) of
rice and corn lands is:
2.5
x AGP[45] x
GSP[46] =
The parameters of PD No. 27 and EO No.
228 are manifestly different from the guidelines provided by RA No. 6657 for determining
just compensation. Section 17 of RA No.
6657 is explicit:
Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. – In
determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current
value of the like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn
valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by
government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits
contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to the
property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any
government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional
factors to determine its valuation.
Due to the divergent formulae or
guidelines presented by these laws, a number of cases have already been brought
to the Court regarding which law applies in computing just compensation for
landholdings acquired under PD No. 27. On this score, the Court has repeatedly held
that if just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA No. 6657, it
should be computed in accordance with said law, although the property was
acquired under PD No. 27.
In the recent Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Angel T. Domingo,[47] We
rejected the
When
RA 6657 was enacted into law in 1988, the agrarian reform process in the
present case was still incomplete as the amount of just compensation to be paid
to Domingo had yet to be settled. Just compensation should therefore be
determined and the expropriation process concluded under RA 6657.
Guided by this precept, just compensation
for purposes of agrarian reform under PD 27 should adhere to Section 17 of RA
6657 x x x.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao,[48] the
Court ruled that taking into account the passage of RA No. 6657 in 1988 pending
the settlement of just compensation, it is that law which applies to
landholdings seized under PD No. 27, with said decree and EO No. 288 having
only suppletory effect. Prior to that
declaration, the Court already decreed in Land
Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[49] citing
Paris v. Alfeche,[50] that:
Under the
factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still
incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to
be settled. Considering the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (6657) before the
completion of the process, the just compensation should be determined and the
process concluded under the said law. Indeed,
RA 6657 is the applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory
effect, conformably with our ruling in
Agrarian reform is a revolutionary
kind of expropriation.[52] The
recognized rule in expropriation is that title to the expropriated property
shall pass from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of the
just compensation.[53] Thus, payment of just compensation to the
landowner is indispensable.
In fact, Section 4, Article XIII of
the 1987 Constitution mandates that the redistribution of agricultural lands
shall be subject to the payment of just compensation. The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission on this subject reveal that just compensation should not do violence
to the Bill of Rights but should also not make an insurmountable obstacle to a
successful agrarian reform program. Hence, the landowner’s right to just
compensation should be balanced with agrarian reform.[54]
In the case under review, the
agrarian reform process was not completed. The just compensation to be paid respondents
was not settled prior to the enactment of RA No. 6657, the law subsequent to PD
No. 27 and EO No. 228. In fact, the
non-payment of just compensation is precisely the reason why respondents filed
a petition for the determination of just compensation before the
The records do not show when
respondents or their father, Florentino Dumlao, was formally notified of the
expropriation. The records, however,
bear out that the bank sent Florentino Dumlao a letter stating that it had
approved the land transfer claim involving that property covered by
Besides, RA No. 6657 applies to rice
and corn lands covered by PD No. 27. In Paris v. Alfeche,[57]
the Court explained:
Considering
the passage of RA 6657 before the completion of the application of the agrarian
reform process to the subject lands, the same should now be completed under the
said law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect. This ruling finds support in Land Bank of the Philippines v. CA, wherein
the Court stated:
“We cannot see why Sec. 18 of RA 6657 should
not apply to rice and corn lands under PD 27. Section 75 of RA 6657 clearly states that the
provisions of PD 27 and EO 228 shall only have a suppletory effect. Section 7
of the Act also provides –
Sec. 7. Priorities. – The
Phase One: Rice and Corn lands under P.D. 27; all
idle or abandoned lands; all private lands voluntarily offered by the owners
for agrarian reform; x x x and all other lands owned by the government devoted
to or suitable for agriculture, which shall be acquired and distributed
immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be
completed within a period of not more than four (4) years.
This eloquently demonstrates that RA 6657
includes PD 27 lands among the properties which the
Verily, there is nothing to prevent
Section 17 of RA No. 6657 from being applied to determine the just compensation
for lands acquired under PD No. 27.
In Natividad,[58] the
Court ruled that the
In Meneses, the Court compared the conflicting rulings in Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[60] cited
by petitioner, and Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Natividad.[61] This Court affirmed Natividad, stating that it would be more equitable to apply the
same due to the circumstances obtaining, i.e. the more than 30-year delay in
the payment of just compensation.
The application of RA No. 6657 due to
the inequity faced by landowners continued in Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines.[62] The landowners were also deprived of their
properties in 1972 but had yet to receive their just compensation even after
the passage of RA No. 6657. Since the
landholdings were already subdivided and distributed to the
farmer-beneficiaries, the Court, speaking through Justice Consuelo
Ynares-Santiago, deemed it unreasonable to compute just compensation using the
values at the time of taking in 1972 as dictated by PD No. 27, and not at the
time of payment pursuant to RA No. 6657.
We find no cogent reason not to apply
the same ratiocination here. In the case
at bar, emancipation patents, and eventually, transfer certificates of title,
were issued to the farmer-beneficiaries[63]
at least twenty-eight (28) years ago. On
Needless to say, respondents have
already been deprived of the use and dominion over their landholdings for a
substantial period of time. In the
interim, petitioner bank has abjectly failed to pay, much less to determine,
the just compensation due to respondents. The law clearly recognizes that the exact
value of lands taken under PD No. 27, or the just compensation to be given to
the landowner must be determined with certainty before the land titles are
transferred.[65]
Petitioner’s gross failure to compensate respondents for loss of their land, while
transferring the same to the farmer-beneficiaries, make it unjust to determine
just compensation based on the guidelines provided by PD No. 27 and EO No. 228.
Accordingly, just compensation should
be computed in accordance with RA No. 6657 in order to give full effect to the
principle that the recompense due to the landowner should be the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken from the owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker’s gain but the
owner’s loss. The word “just” is used to
intensify the meaning of the word “compensation” to convey the idea that the
equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample.[66]
The determination of just
compensation is a function addressed to the courts of justice and may not be
usurped by any other branch or official of the government.[67] However, the determination made by the trial
court, which relied solely on the
formula prescribed by PD No. 27 and EO No.
228, is grossly erroneous. The amount of
P6,912.50 per hectare, which is based on the
Meanwhile, the CA’s act of setting
just compensation in the amount of P109,000.00 would have been a valid
exercise of this judicial function, had it followed the mandatory formula
prescribed by RA No. 6657. However, the
appellate court merely chose the lower of two (2) values specified by the
commissioner as basis for determining just compensation, namely: (a) P109,000.00
per hectare as the market value of
first class unirrigated rice land in the Municipality of Villaverde; and (b) P60.00
per square meter as the zonal value
of the land in other barangays in
Villaverde. This is likewise erroneous because
it does not adhere to the formula provided by RA No. 6657.
It cannot be overemphasized that the
just compensation to be given to the owner cannot be assumed and must be
determined with certainty.[69] Its determination involves the examination of
the following factors specified in Section 17 of RA No. 6657, as amended,
namely: (1) the cost of acquisition of the land; (2) the current value of the
properties; (3) its nature, actual use, and income; (4) the sworn valuation by
the owner; (5) the tax declarations; (6) the assessment made by government
assessors; (7) the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and
the farmworkers and by the government to the property; and (8) the non-payment
of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said
land, if any.[70]
Section 17 was converted into a
formula by the
A. There shall be one basic formula for the
valuation of lands covered by [Voluntary Offer to Sell] or [Compulsory
Acquisition] regardless of the date of offer or coverage of the claim:
Where:
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration
The
above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present, relevant and
applicable.
A.1
When the CS factor is not present and
A.2
When the
A.3
When both the CS and
In no case shall
the value of the land using the formula MV x 2 exceed the lowest value of land
within the same estate under consideration or within the same barangay or municipality (in that order)
approved by LBP within one (1) year from receipt of claimfolder.
x x
x x
A.6 The basic formula in the grossing-up of
valuation inputs such as LO’s Offer, Sales Transaction (ST), Acquisition Cost
(AC), Market Value Based on Mortgage (MVM) and Market Value per Tax Declaration
(MV) shall be:
Grossed-up = Valuation
input x
Valuation
Input Regional Consumer Price
Index
(RCPI) Adjustment
Factor
The RCPI Adjustment
Factor shall refer to the ratio of RCPI for the month issued by the National
Statistics Office as of the date when the claimfolder (CF) was received by LBP
from
RCPI
for the Month as of the
Date
of Receipt of Claimfolder
by
LBP from
recent
RCPI for the Month
Issued
Prior to the Date of
RCPI Receipt of CF
Adjustment = ——————————————
Factor RCPI for the Month Issued as of
the
Date/Effectivity/Registration
of
the Valuation Input
B. Capitalized Net Income (
Expressed in
equation form:
—————————
.12
Where:
AGP = Latest
available 12-month's gross production
immediately preceding the date of offer in case of VOS or date of notice of coverage in case of CA.
SP = The
average of the
latest available 12
month’s selling
prices prior to the date of receipt of the claimfolder by LBP for processing,
such prices to be secured from the Department of Agriculture (DA) and other
appropriate regulatory bodies or, in their absence, from the Bureau of
Agricultural Statistics. If possible, SP data shall be gathered from the barangay or municipality where the
property is located. In the absence thereof, SP may be secured within the
province or region.
CO = Cost
of Operations
Whenever the cost
of operations could not be obtained or verified, an assumed net income rate
(NIR) of 20% shall be used. Landholdings planted to coconut which are
productive at the time of offer/coverage shall continue to use the 70% NIR.
.12 = Capitalization
Rate
x x
x x
C. CS shall refer to any one or the average of all the applicable sub-factors, namely, ST, AC and MVM:
Where: ST = Sales Transactions as defined under Item C.2
AC = Acquisition Cost as defined under Item C.3
MVM = Market Value Based on Mortgage as defined
under Item C.4
x x x x
D. In the computation of Market Value per Tax
Declaration (MV), the most recent Tax Declaration (TD) and Schedule of Unit
Market Value (
While the determination of just
compensation involves the exercise of judicial discretion, such discretion must
be discharged within the bounds of the law.[73] The
In his Report, the Commissioner
merely specified the market value of first class unirrigated ricelands in the
municipality where the properties are located, as well as the zonal value of
lands in other barangays in the same
municipality. For their part,
respondents attempted to prove the following: market value of unirrigated
ricelands for the Municipality of Villaverde, set at P109,000.00 per
hectare, pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Tax Ordinance No. 96-45;[76]
annual production of unirrigated ricefields in Villaverde, at 80 cavans during
“palagad” cropping, and 101 cavans
under regular cropping;[77]
government support price for palay
for the period P6.00 per
kilo, and from P8.00 per kilo.[78]
However, the records do not bear out
if these factors are the only ones relevant,
present and applicable in this case, so that just compensation can now be
computed by the Court based on the formula provided by the
We are thus compelled to remand the
case to the court a quo to determine
the final valuation of respondents’ properties. The trial court is mandated to consider the
factors provided under Section 17 of RA No. 6657, as translated into the
formula prescribed by
Furthermore, upon its own initiative,
or at the instance of any of the parties, the
We next
address the second issue – date of taking.
The “taking” of the properties for the
purpose of computing just compensation should be reckoned from the date of
issuance of emancipation patents, and not on
We cannot sustain petitioner’s
position that respondents’ properties were statutorily taken on P35.00 for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay on
In Association of Small Landowners
v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,[83]
the Court held that title to the property expropriated shall pass from the
owner to the expropriator
only upon full payment of just compensation. The Court further held that:
It is true
that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer as [of]
In Land
Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao,[85] the Court
declared that seizure of landholdings or
properties covered by PD No. 27 did not take place on
Land
Bank’s contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian
reform on
However,
for purposes of computing just compensation, this Court recently declared in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Angel
T. Domingo[87] that
the time of taking should be reckoned from the issue dates of emancipation
patents.
The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the emancipation patents. An emancipation patent constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the grantee. It is from the issuance of an emancipation patent that the grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in the landholding, subject to the payment of just compensation to the landowner.[88] (Emphasis supplied)
It is
undisputed that emancipation patents were issued to the farmer-beneficiaries. However, their issuance dates are not shown. As such, the trial court should determine the
date of issuance of these emancipation patents in order to ascertain the date
of taking and proceed to compute the just compensation due to respondents, in
accordance with RA No. 6657.
Now, to
the third and final issue.
Respondents are entitled to payment of just compensation even on those
properties which have not been processed by the
Petitioner admits that of
respondents’ landholdings, only those covered by P109,000.00
per hectare for those covered by
The argument is specious for three
reasons.
First, the determination
of just compensation is judicial in nature. The
In Natividad, the Court held that:
[T]here is
nothing contradictory between the
In
accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction
is vested in the
Thus, the
trial court did not err in taking cognizance of the case as the determination
of just compensation is a function addressed to the courts of justice.[90] (Emphasis supplied)
In fact, the law does not make the
Accordingly, RA No. 6657 directs
petitioner to pay the
Second, to
wait for the
Just compensation means not only the
correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but
also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking.
Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered “just” for the
property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived
of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually
receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss. x x x.[93] (Emphasis supplied)
In the case at bar, the properties
have long been expropriated by the government and their fruits enjoyed by the
farmer-beneficiaries. Respondent have
been made to wait for decades for payment of their recompense. They were not even allowed to withdraw the
amount claimed to have been deposited with petitioner bank on their
behalf. It would certainly be iniquitous
to wait for the
Third, while
the
The principle of exhaustion
of administrative remedies is a relative one and is flexible depending on the
peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of a case.
It is disregarded: (1) when there is a
violation of due process; (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal
question; (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal and amounts to
lack or excess of jurisdiction; (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the
administrative agency concerned; (5) when there is irreparable injury; (6) when
respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the
President, bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter; (7) when to require exhaustion of
administrative remedies would be unreasonable; (8) when it would amount to
a nullification of a claim; (9)
when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings; (10) when the rule does not provide a
plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (11) when
there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention, and
unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the complainant; (12) when no
administrative review is provided by law; (13) where the rule of qualified political
agency applies; and (14) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies has been rendered moot.[95]
Here, to require exhaustion of
administrative remedies would be unreasonable.
What is more, judicial intervention is necessary so as not to unduly
prejudice the landowners. Respondents
have long been deprived of their landholdings, yet compensation has been
withheld from them. Accordingly, to make
respondents wait for the
Respondents are entitled to the right of retention over their lands.
The right of retention is
constitutionally guaranteed, subject to qualification by the legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of
compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the
tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to
perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. A retained area, as its name denotes, is land
which is not supposed to anymore leave the landowner’s dominion, thus sparing
the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the
landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless process.[96]
The opinion of the MARO[97]
that respondents are not entitled to retain areas out of their landholdings
because they applied for the same after the grace period set by the government[98] fails
to persuade. A landowner whose land was
taken pursuant to PD No. 27 has a right to retain seven hectares of land,
provided that the landowner is cultivating the area or will now cultivate it.[99]
Those who did not avail of their rights of retention under PD
No. 27 are entitled to exercise the same under Section 6[100]
of RA No. 6657.[101] Landowners may still avail of their retention
rights notwithstanding the
In sum,
We rule that:
1. The provisions of RA No. 6657 apply in
determining the just compensation due to respondents for the taking of their
property. However, the value of P109,000.00,
based on the property’s market value and assigned by the CA as just
compensation, is erroneous. The trial
court is thus directed to receive evidence pertaining to the factors to be
considered in determining just compensation, in accordance with
2. For purposes of computing just
compensation, the date of issuance of emancipations is deemed the date of
taking, not
3. Respondents are entitled to payment of
just compensation on their entire landholdings covered by Operation Land
Transfer, except for the five hectares of retention area each of them are
entitled to.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The case is REMANDED to the court a quo
for final determination of just compensation due to respondents.
SO ORDERED.
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO
B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants From the Bondage of the Soil Transferring
to Them the Ownership of the Land They Till and Providing
the Instruments and Mechanisms Therefor. Issued on
[2] Effective on
[3] Rules of Civil Procedure (1997), Rule 45.
[4] Rollo, pp.
3-23. Penned by Associate Justice
Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok, with Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and
Danilo B. Pine, concurring. Dated
[5] Registered in the names of Florentino G.
Dumlao and Josefina R. Dumlao.
[6] Registered in the name of A. Florentino R.
Dumlao, Jr.
[7] Registered in the name Stella R.
Dumlao-Atienza.
[8] Registered in the name of Stella R.
Dumlao-Atienza.
[9] Rollo, p.
61.
[10]
[11]
Declaring
[12] Rollo, p. 32.
[13]
[14]
[15]
Entitled Josefina R. Dumlao, A.
Florentino R. Dumlao, Jr., Stella Dumlao-Atienza, Nestor R. Dumlao, represented
by Attorney-In-Fact, A. Florentino R. Dumlao, Jr. v. Rafael R. Alcazar, The
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya, The Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer of Nueva Vizcaya, Land Bank of the Philippines, Solano
Branch, Nueva Vizcaya. Docketed as
Case No. 6000.
[16]
Sitting as
[17] Rollo, p. 61.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
Records, pp. 147-149.
[23]
[24]
CA rollo, pp. 135-138.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
Records, pp. 192-193.
[29]
CA rollo, pp. 141-142.
[30]
[31]
Supra note 4.
[32] Rollo, pp. 73-74.
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40] Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. Nos. 78742, 79310,
79744 & 79777,
[41]
Providing the Mechanisms for the Implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program.
[42] Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, supra at 354.
[43]
[44]
[45]
Average gross production.
[46]
Government support price.
[47] G.R. No. 168533,
[48]
G.R. No. 166777,
[49]
G.R. No. 127198,
[50]
Supra note 44.
[51] Land Bank of the
[52]
[53] Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, supra note 40, at
389-390, citing Kennedy v. Indianapolis, 103
US 599, 26 L. Ed. 550; Rubottom v.
Mclure, 4 Blkf. 508; Rexford v.
Knight, 11 NY 314; Visayan Refining
Co. v. Camus and Paredes, 40 Phil. 550 (1919).
[54] Land Bank of the
[55] Rollo, p. 114; Exhibit “2-b.”
[56]
[57]
Supra note 44.
[58]
Supra note 49.
[59]
G.R. No. 156304,
[60]
G.R. No. 148223,
[61]
Supra note 49.
[62]
G.R. No. 170220,
[63] Rollo, p. 61.
[64]
Records, p. 79; Exhibit “J.”
[65]
[66] Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, supra note 40, at
378-379.
[67]
[68]
Records, p. 195.
[69]
[70] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal,
G.R. No. 143276,
[71]
Rules and Regulations Amending the Valuation of Lands Voluntarily Offered and
Compulsorily Acquired as Provided for Under Administrative Order No. 17, Series
of 1989, as Amended, Issued Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657. Issued on
[72]
Revising the Rules and Regulations Covering the Valuation of Lands Voluntarily
Offered or Compulsorily Acquired As Embodied in Administrative Order No. 6,
Series of 1992. Issued on
[73] Land Bank of the
[74] Land Bank of the
[75]
[76]
Records, pp. 74-76, Exhibit “G.”
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80] Land Bank of the
[81] National Power Corporation v. Chiong,
G.R. No. 152436,
[82] Rollo, p. 236.
[83]
Supra note 40.
[84]
[85]
Supra note 48, citing Land Bank v.
Natividad, supra note 49.
[86] Land Bank of the
[87]
Supra note 47.
[88]
[89] Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, supra note 40, at 382.
[90] Land Bank of the
[91]
Section 18. Valuation and Mode of
Compensation. – The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as
may be agreed upon by the landowner and the
[92]
G.R. No. L-77765,
[93] Cosculluela v. Court of Appeals, id. at
400.
[94] See Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, supra
note 59.
[95] Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 109853,
[96] Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
133507,
[97]
Records, pp. 79-80; Exhibit “J.” Dated
[98]
[99] Presidential
Decree No. 27.
[100] Section 6. Retention Limits. – Except as otherwise
provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly, any public or
private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors
governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity produced, terrain,
infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall the retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.
Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each
child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is
at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the
land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose
lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep
the area originally retained by them thereunder; Provided, further, That
original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the
original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the
same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
The right to choose the area to be
retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain, to the
landowner: Provided, however, That in case the area selected for
retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to
choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another
agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the
retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to
be a beneficiary under this Act. In
case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural
land, he loses his right as a
leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a
period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the
area for retention. (Emphasis supplied)
[101] Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, supra note 40, at 392.
[102]
G.R. No. 133507,
[103]
Supra note 40.
[104]