HEIRS OF ROQUE F. TABUENA, G.R. No. 180557
represented by AURORA P. TABUENA,
ESTER P. TABUENA and ERLINDA T.
MARCELLANA, HEIRS OF JOSE
TABUENA, represented by MA. LUZ T.
MACASINAG, HEIRS OF ROMULO
TABUENA, represented by MILAGROS
ARROYO, HEIRS OF BENJAMIN
TABUENA, represented by MA.
VICTORIA TABUENA, and RAFAELA
ROSARIO ESGUERRA,
Petitioners, Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
Nachura, and
Reyes, JJ.
LAND BANK OF THE
Respondent. Promulgated:
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This
petition assails the July 11, 2007 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88469 which reversed and set aside the October
1, 2004 Decision[2] of the
Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon City, Branch 52 in Agrarian Case No. 2000-6767.
Also assailed is the
The
facts of the case as found by the Court of Appeals are as follows:
On September 28, 2000, respondents
filed a complaint for determination and payment of just compensation against
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP),
which was amended on October 3, 2000, alleging that they were the owners of Lot
No. 6183, an irrigated riceland with an area of 29.9557 hectares located at
Bibincahan, Sorsogon, Sorsogon; that 26.2585 hectares of said lot were brought
by DAR under the coverage of P.D. No. 27 (The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law) and set the total value thereof at P105,572.48, excluding increments, in
contravention of their right to a just compensation; and that the determination
of what constitutes just compensation is inherently a judicial function which
cannot and should not be left to administrative officials.
An
amended answer was filed by DAR alleging that the determination of just
compensation by the court is not necessary because respondents and the
farmer-beneficiaries had already executed a Landowner-Tenant Production
Agreement and Farmers Undertaking (LTPA-FU) To Pay to the LBP, whereby the
parties agreed on the valuation of the riceland; and that in compliance with
said agreement, the farmer-beneficiaries have already paid their land
amortizations with LBP, as evidenced by a Certification dated July 18, 1980
issued by Mr. Ely Pongpong, Bank Executive Officer I.
A
motion to dismiss was filed by LBP alleging that the case did not pass the
Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board (DARAB), which has primary
and exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction over the valuation of land,
as well as the preliminary determination and payment of just compensation and
disputes concerning the functions of LBP; that for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, the case is premature; and that respondents have no
cause of action against it.
In
an Order dated
LBP then filed an answer alleging
that the complaint states no cause of action because respondents already
received the payment for their property in the form of cash and bonds and they
executed documents evidencing payment of the property to their full
satisfaction, such as the Assignment of Rights, Landowner’s Affidavit of
Warranty and Undertaking, Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Waiver of
Rights, Payment Release Forms, Special Power of Attorney and Delegation of
Special Power of Attorney, copies of which, together with photocopies of the
Case Registry Book and Bond Registry Book, were attached thereto as Annexes “A”
to “G.”
In their position paper, respondents
admitted that they have already received the amount of P64,690.19 from the
valuation of P105,572.48. However, they
claimed that the valuation of P4,398.00 per hectare is unreasonable and
shocking to the conscience and since they have not yet been fully paid for
their property, they are still the owners thereof and can ask for an increase
of the purchase price.
A position paper was filed by DAR
alleging that respondents accepted the valuation of P15,572.48 and executed a
Deed of Assignment of Rights and Landowner’s Affidavit of Warranty and
Undertaking, so that they are already estopped from asking for an increase in
the purchase price.
LBP filed a position paper alleging
that respondents are estopped from claiming an increase in the valuation on the
grounds of payment and prescription, as more than twenty (20) years have lapsed
from the time said valuation was made.
On
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1) Fixing the amount of FOUR MILLION EIGHT
HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (PHP4,855,000.00) for the area of 26.0012
hectares, covered by TCT No. T-28473 in the name of the Heirs of Roque Tabuena
of that Riceland situated at Baribag, Bibincahan,
2) Ordering the defendant Land Bank of the
Philippines to pay the Plaintiffs the total amount of Four Million Eight
Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Pesos (P4,855,000.00) Philippine currency in the
manner provided by law by way of the full payment of the said just compensation
after deducting whatever amount previously received by the plaintiffs if any
from the defendant Land Bank of the Philippines as part of the just
compensation.
3) Ordering the plaintiffs to pay whatever
deficiency in the docket fees to the Clerk of Court based on the valuation
fixed by the Court.
4) Without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.”[4]
DAR
and LBP filed separate motions for reconsideration[5] but
were denied; thus, both filed petitions for review[6] before
the Court of Appeals. However, DAR’s
petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated
LBP alleged that the subject land
transfer claim had been settled and extinguished by virtue of the Deed of
Assignment of Rights executed by petitioners in favor of LBP; that the said
deed is the best evidence that the land transfer claim had been consummated;
that since there has been no action on the part of petitioners to annul the
same, they were estopped from assailing its validity; that the just
compensation fixed by the trial court in the amount of P4,855,000.00 was
improper since the valuation should be computed at the time of the taking of
the property; that petitioners should have first availed of the administrative
proceedings before the DAR which has primary jurisdiction over the case; and that
it is only after the landowner had disagreed with the valuation of the DAR that
he can file a case before the courts for final determination of just
compensation.
Petitioners claimed that their
acceptance of the offered price does not estop them from questioning the
valuation since the Deed of Assignment of Rights is not conclusive proof that
their claim was extinguished; that the trial court did not err in fixing just
compensation in the amount of P4,855,000.00 since the actual taking of the land
would take effect only upon the payment of just compensation.
On
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration[9]
was denied; hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioners
contend that the appellate court erred when it admitted the Deed of Assignment
of Rights considering that the said document was not offered in evidence by
respondent; that petitioners were not given the opportunity to examine the same
or to object to its admissibility; that assuming that the said deed may be
admitted in evidence, it could not be considered as a binding contract because
they executed the same under duress.
The petition lacks merit.
Generally, courts cannot consider
evidence which has not been formally offered. Parties are required to inform the courts of
the purpose of introducing their respective exhibits to assist the latter in
ruling on their admissibility in case an objection thereto is made. Without a formal offer of evidence, courts are
constrained to take no notice of the evidence even if it has been marked and
identified.[10] However, this Court has relaxed the foregoing
rule and allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered by
the trial court provided the same must have been identified by testimony duly
recorded and incorporated in the records of the case.[11]
In the instant case, the Deed of Assignment
of Rights[12] was set
up by LBP as an affirmative defense in its Answer and was incorporated in the
records of the case as an annex.[13] Petitioners however failed to question its
existence or due execution. On the
contrary, they acknowledged receipt of a portion of the compensation for the
property[14] and admitted
that the Deed of Assignment of Rights appeared as an encumbrance in their
certificate of title.[15] Petitioners’ failure to specifically deny
under oath the existence, authenticity and due execution of the said document is
tantamount to a judicial admission of its genuineness and due execution.[16] Sections 7 and 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
provide:
SEC.
7. Action
or defense based on document. – Whenever an action or defense is based upon
a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document
shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be
attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of
the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading.
SEC.
8. How
to contest such documents. – When an action or defense is founded upon a
written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as
provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath,
specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but
the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not
appear be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an
inspection of the original instrument is refused.
There is likewise no merit in
petitioners’ allegation that LBP lacks locus standi since DAR’s petition for
review was dismissed by the Court of Appeals and said dismissal has become
final and executory; that being a necessary party and not an indispensable
party, LBP has no right to appeal unless the DAR appeals.
LBP is an agency created primarily to
provide financial support in all phases of agrarian reform pursuant to Section
74 of Republic Act (RA) No. 3844[17]
and Section 64 of RA No. 6657.[18] It is vested with the primary responsibility
and authority in the valuation and compensation of covered landholdings to
carry out the full implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.[19] It may agree with the DAR and the land owner
as to the amount of just compensation to be paid to the latter and may also
disagree with them and bring the matter to court for judicial determination.[20]
Once an expropriation proceeding for
the acquisition of private agricultural lands is commenced by the DAR, the
indispensable role of LBP begins,[21] which
clearly shows that there would never be a judicial determination of just
compensation absent respondent LBP’s participation. Logically, it follows that
respondent is an indispensable party in an action for the determination of just
compensation in cases arising from agrarian reform program;[22]
as such, it can file an appeal independently of DAR.
Moreover, by virtue of the Deed of Assignment
of Rights executed by petitioners whereby they acknowledged receipt of the full
compensation for their property and have assigned, transferred and conveyed
their rights over the subject property to LBP, their claim for an increase in
the valuation of such property has no basis. LBP’s obligation had long been extinguished
and settled. Except for their bare and
general allegations of compulsion and duress in view of the fact that the Deed
of Assignment of Rights was executed during the effectivity of Martial Law, petitioners
have not presented any evidence to dispute the same. Hence, petitioners were estopped from
assailing the validity of the said deed.
Moreover, laches has set in due to petitioners’
inaction for more than 20 years to assail the due execution of the Deed of
Assignment of Rights. Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising
due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission
to assert a right within a reasonable length of time, warranting a presumption
that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declines to
assert it.[23] All the elements of laches are present in the
instant case. The subject property was
acquired by the government by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27 which took
effect on
Moreover, Section 16 of Republic Act No.
6657 gives the landowner, in case he/she disagrees with valuation of the DAR,
the following remedy, to wit:
SECTION
16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.
- For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall
be followed:
(a) After having identified the land, the
land-owners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the
land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post
the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of
the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of
the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth
in Section 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date
of receipt of written notice by personal delivery of registered mail, the
landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his
acceptance or rejection of the offer.
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of
the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within
thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of
the Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of
title.
(d) In case of rejection of failure to
reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine
the compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other
interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land,
within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of
the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for
decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is
submitted for decision.
(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. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the
redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
(f) Any party who disagrees with the
decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final
determination of just compensation. (Underscoring ours)
In Apo Fruits Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[24] this
Court ruled that:
AFC and HPI now blame LBP for allegedly incurring delay in the determination and payment of just compensation. However, the same is without basis as AFC and HPI’s proper recourse after rejecting the initial valuations of respondent LBP was to bring the matter to the RTC acting as a SAC, and not to file two complaints for determination of just compensation with the DAR, which was just circuitous as it had already determined the just compensation of the subject properties taken with the aid of LBP. (Underscoring ours)
Besides, Rule XIII, Section 11 of the
New Rules of Procedure of the DARAB provides thus:
Section 11. Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just Compensation. The decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary determination and payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration. (Underlining for emphasis)[25]
Finally, there is no basis to
petitioners’ allegation that they were not yet fully paid of the valuation. The Deed of Assignment of Rights[26] executed
by petitioners and respondent clearly provided that:
WHEREAS,
the Land Bank has by these presents satisfactorily paid and settled in
my/our favor the net cost or value of the above-described landholdings in the
mode provided under Presidential Decree No. 251 as follows:
CASH: TWELVE THOUSAND SEVENTEEN PESOS
& 53/100 (P12,017.53)
BONDS: NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS ONLY
(P97,000.00)
which
settlement/payment is in full compensation of the cost of said landholding (s)
and which I/we hereby acknowledge to have received from the Land Bank to my/our
full satisfaction.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the said
Presidential Decree No. 251, whenever the Land Bank pays the whole or a portion
of the total cost of farm lots, the Bank shall be subrogated by reason thereof
to the rights of the landowner to collect and receive the yearly amortization/s
on the farm lot/s or the amount paid including the interest thereon, from the
above-named tenant-farmer beneficiary/ies in whose favor said farm lot/s
has/have been transferred pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, covenants and stipulations, I/We hereby ASSIGN, TRANSFER and CONVEY, absolutely and irrevocably to the LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, x x x all claims, rights, interests and participations of whatever nature or kind pertaining to the area/s covered by the Certificate/s of Land Transfer mentioned herein and transferred to the tenant-farmer/s x x x all existing improvements thereon x x x. (Underscoring ours)
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 88469 dated July 11, 2007 reversing and setting aside the October 1,
2004 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 52 in Agrarian
Case No. 2000-6767 and dismissing petitioners’ complaint for determination and
payment of just compensation, as well as the October 15, 2007 Resolution
denying the Motion for Reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were 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, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were 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] Rollo, pp. 45-57; penned by Associate
Justice Marina L. Buzon and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D.
Carandang and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Records, Vol. I, pp. 268-273; 275-288.
[6]
Records, Vol. II, pp. 1-18 & 41-67.
[7]
[8] CA
rollo, pp. 12-39.
[9]
Records, Vol. II, pp. 221-235.
[10] Far East Bank & Trust Company v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 149589, September 15, 2006, 502
SCRA 87, 90.
[11] Ramos v. Dizon, G.R. No. 137247,
[12]
CA rollo, pp. 114-117.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
152154,
[17]
Agricultural Land Reform Code.
[18]
An Act Constituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to Promote Social
Justice and Industrialization, Providing the Mechanism for Its Implementation,
and for Other Purposes.
[19]
Section 15, E.O. No. 228 (CREATING THE PRE
[20]
R.A. No. 6657; Sec. 16.
[21] Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 148223, November 25, 2004, 444 SCRA 176, 186.
[22]
[23] Regalado v. Go, G.R. No. 167988,
[24]
G.R. No. 164195,
[25] Land Bank of the
[26]
CA rollo, p. 115.