THIRD DIVISION
|
LAND
BANK OF THE Petitioner, -
versus - |
G.R. No. 161834 Present: CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, ABAD,* and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ., |
|
HEIR
OF Respondent. |
Promulgated: August 11, 2010 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
Before us is a petition for review on
certiorari filed by petitioner under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, to reverse and set aside the Decision[1]
dated August 8, 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 76572
denying its petition for certiorari and sustaining the Orders dated December
12, 2002 and February 17, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) (Special
Agrarian Court [SAC]) of Tagum City, Davao del Norte, Branch 2 in DAR Case No.
79-2002.
The antecedents are set forth in the CA
Decision:
Private
respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land situated in
Sampao, Kapalong, Davao del Norte with an approximate area of 37.1010 hectares
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-49200, 14.999 hectares of which
was covered by RA No. 6657 through the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Private
respondent offered to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) the price of P2,000,000.00
per hectare for said portion of the land covered by CARP.
Petitioner
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued and offered as just compensation for
said 14.999 hectares the amount of P1,145,806.06 or P76,387.57 per
hectare. The offer was rejected by
private respondent.
In
accordance with Section 16 of RA No. 6657, petitioner LBP deposited for the
account of private respondent P1,145,806.06 in cash and in bonds as
provisional compensation for the acquisition of the property.
Thereafter,
the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through the Regional Adjudicator (RARAD)
for Region XI conducted summary administrative proceedings under DARAB Case No.
LV-XI-0330-DN-2002 to fix the just compensation.
On
P10,294,721.00
or P686,319.36 per hectare.
Petitioner
LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision but the same was
denied on
Petitioner
LBP filed a petition against private respondent for judicial determination of
just compensation before the
Private
respondent, on the other hand, filed a similar petition against DAR before the
same
Private
respondent filed a Motion for Delivery of the Initial Valuation praying that
petitioner LBP be ordered to deposit the DARAB determined amount of P10,294,721.00
in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling in “Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, Pedro L. Yap, Et
Al., G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995”.
Petitioner
LBP filed a Manifestation praying that the amount of the deposit should only be
the initial valuation of the DAR/LBP in the amount of P1,145,806.06 and
not P10,294,721.00 as determined by the DARAB.
On
P10,294,721.00.
On
On
After
the filing of private respondent’s comment to the motion for reconsideration
and petitioner LBP’s explanation and memorandum to the motion for reconsideration,
public respondent rendered the assailed resolution dated
Petitioner
LBP filed a motion to admit a second motion for reconsideration which still
remains unacted upon by public respondent.
Hence,
this petition based on the following grounds:
“I. THE
SAC ORDER TO DEPOSIT HAD NO LEGAL BASIS, CONSIDERING THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR
THE PROMPT PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS SATISFIED
BY THE DEPOSIT OF THE PROVISIONAL COMPENSATION OF P1,145,806.06 REQUIRED UNDER
SECTION 16 (E) OF RA 6657 AND THE RULING IN THE CASE OF ‘LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES V. COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO L. YAP, ET AL.’, G.R. NO. 118712,
II. THE
On
Section
16 (a) refers to an “offer” of the DAR to pay a corresponding value of the
land. Facts of the case show that P1,145,806.06
was the offered price which was rejected by the private respondent.
In
cases of rejection of the offer, Section 16(d)
states that there shall be a summary administrative proceedings to
determine the compensation for the land.
Hence, the proceedings before the DARAB, through the RARAD for Region XI
as in this case.
Note that in
Sections 16(a) to (d), or, during the offer until its rejection, there was no
reference to a deposit of the compensation.
The reference to
a deposit of the compensation appears only in Section 16(e) or after the DAR,
in a summary administrative proceedings, had determined or decided the case
relative to the compensation of the land.
If
it had been the intention of the law to require the deposit of the compensation
based on the offer or in the amount of P1,145,806.06, the law should
have stated such.
The reference to
the “deposit” right after [the] decision of the DARAB shall have been rendered,
obviously means that the amount of the deposit should be based on the DARAB
decision. Otherwise, there would be no need to
institute an administrative proceeding before the DARAB, before a deposit shall
be required.
In
the case of Association of Small
Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the
Supreme Court held that the determination made by the DAR is only preliminary
unless accepted by all parties concerned.
Apropos,
it was held in the case of Land Bank of
the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Jose Pascual that it is the DARAB
which has the authority to determine the initial valuation of lands involving
agrarian reform although such valuation may only be considered preliminary as
the final determination of just compensation is vested in the courts.
Therefore,
the deposit of the initial valuation referred to in Section 16 of RA No. 6657
is the DAR-determined amount or in this case, the amount of P10,294,721.00.
The
assailed orders of the SAC are correct and within the parameters of RA No.
6657.[3] [italics supplied.]
Petitioner LBP filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA on
In this recourse from the appellate
court’s ruling, petitioner alleges that:
THE
COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN DENYING AND/OR
DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY LBP, THEREBY AFFIRMING THE
ORDER OF THE SAC A QUO THAT THE
DEPOSIT OF THE INITIAL VALUATION REFERRED TO IN SECTION 16 OF RA 6657 IS THE
NON-FINAL DAR ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB)-DETERMINED AMOUNT OR IN THIS CASE, THE
AMOUNT OF P10,294,721.00.[5]
Petitioner argues that a reading of
Section 16 shows that the “rejection” by the landowner refers to the “offer” of
the DAR as compensation for the land as initially valued by LBP pursuant to
Executive Order (EO) No. 405, and not the
compensation award contained in the decision of the DARAB/RARAD. It contends that the CA’s interpretation
would only inject obscurity and vagueness in the law, which is otherwise clear
and unambiguous. The over-stretching of
the connotation and meaning of “rejection” as relating to the decision of the
DARAB/RARAD, as the CA would have it, is utterly wrong and not within the
intendment of Section 16. Obviously,
sub-paragraph (e) does not make any reference at all to the decisions of
quasi-judicial bodies. If the law so
intended to attach connotation to the word “rejection” in sub-paragraph (e) in
relation to the decisions of the DARAB/RARAD, or the word “deposit” in relation
to the compensation award of the DARAB/RARAD, sub-paragraph (e) should have
stated it plain and clear.[6]
Petitioner points out that the amount it
deposited as provisional compensation is the starting point for the
cancellation of the title of the landowner in favor of the Government, while
the administrative proceeding for the determination of just compensation is
ongoing with the DARAB. Thus, if the
amount to be deposited is the amount as determined by the PARAD, RARAD or
DARAB, then the implementation of the CARP will be adversely affected since the
cancellation of the landowner’s title will now depend on how fast the decision
would be rendered by said quasi-judicial bodies. Logic, therefore, dictates that the amount
that should be deposited is the amount initially offered by the DAR and not the
amount as determined by a quasi-judicial body like the PARAD, RARAD or DARAB.[7]
Citing DAR Administrative Order (AO) No.
02, series of 1996, which converted all existing trust deposits and instituted
a new procedure on the direct deposit in cash and bonds, petitioner asserts
that the provisional compensation consists of the original DAR/LBP valuation
offered to the landowner, following the correct interpretation of Section 16
(e) of R.A. No. 6657. This deposit is
done only once, that is, after the landowner rejects the original valuation
offered by DAR/LBP. It must also be
noted from the procedure provided in DAR AO No. 02, the request by the DAR to
the DARAB/RARAD/PARAD to conduct administrative proceedings is done only after
a request to deposit the initial/original compensation proceeds had been made
by the DAR to LBP; the amount to be deposited is that offered initially by the
DAR based on the valuation made by LBP pursuant to EO No. 405.[8]
Petitioner further points out that with
thousands of cases involving compensation of lands, if LBP were to implement
the SAC order that the PARAD/RARAD valuation is the one (1) to be deposited but
thereafter the valuation by LBP is finally upheld by the Court as the just
compensation due to the landowner, petitioner will be faced with an enormous
responsibility of filing recovery suits against thousands of landowners. It stressed that once deposited, the
inordinately high valuation would be under the complete disposal of the
landowner, the withdrawal thereof, pending final determination by the Court of
just compensation, is only made subject to compliance with payment release
requirements of petitioner. Indeed, the
SAC misinterpreted the law and if its erroneous order is implemented, it will
create financial havoc to the already scarce Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF) because
every victorious party before the RARAD/PARAD/DARAB will surely move for a
similar “order to deposit” their compensation award even if the cases for
judicial determination of just compensation are still pending before the SAC.[9]
On the other
hand, respondent points out that petitioner did not appeal the decision of the RARAD
to the Board, and hence, the administrative proceeding for determination of
just compensation is over. The
proceeding before the SAC is not an appeal from the decision of the RARAD. Consequently, what is to be deposited is not
the initial valuation by petitioner but that of the RARAD. Moreover, if petitioner’s interpretation of
Section 16 is upheld, it will render the proceedings before the DARAB useless,
for after all it is the LBP’s valuation which will be followed.[10]
The lone issue in this controversy is
the correct amount of provisional compensation which the LBP is required to
deposit in the name of the landowner if the latter rejects the DAR/LBP’s
offer. Petitioner maintains it should be
its initial valuation of the land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS)
while respondent claims it pertains to the sum awarded by the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB
in a summary administrative proceeding pending final determination by the
courts.
The petition is meritorious.
Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657 reads:
SEC.
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 landowners 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 Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of
receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the
landowners, 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 or 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. [emphasis supplied.]
According to the CA, the deposit of
provisional compensation mentioned in sub-paragraph (e) pertains to that amount
awarded by the DAR in the summary administrative proceeding under the preceding
sub-paragraph (d). It noted that the
word “deposit” was not mentioned until after sub-paragraph (d), when the DAR is
tasked to conduct a summary administrative proceeding. Otherwise, said the appellate court, there
would be no need to institute an administrative proceeding before the DARAB,
before a deposit is required.
We find the foregoing as a strained
interpretation of a simple and clear enough provision on the procedure
governing acquisition of lands under CARP, whether under the compulsory
acquisition or VOS scheme. Indeed, it
would make no sense to mention anything about the provisional deposit in
sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) – the landowner is sent a notice of valuation to
which he should reply within a specified time, and in sub-paragraph (c) – when the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR/LBP as compensation for his land. Sub-paragraph (d) provides for the
consequence of the landowner’s rejection of the initial valuation of his land,
that is, the conduct of a summary administrative proceeding for a preliminary
determination by the DARAB through the PARAD or RARAD, during which the LBP,
landowner and other interested parties are required to submit evidence to aid
the DARAB/RARAD/PARAD in the valuation of the subject land. Sub-paragraph (e), on the other hand, states
the precondition for the State’s taking of possession of the landowner’s
property and the cancellation of the landowner’s title, thus paving the way for
the eventual redistribution of the land to qualified beneficiaries: payment of the compensation (if the
landowner already accepts the offer of the DAR/LBP) or deposit of the
provisional compensation (if the landowner rejects or fails to respond to the
offer of the DAR/LBP). Indeed, the CARP
Law conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the
government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit of the compensation in
cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank.[11]
It was thus erroneous for the CA to
conclude that the provisional compensation required to be deposited as provided
in Section 16 (e) is the sum determined by the DARAB/PARAD/RARAD in a summary
administrative proceeding merely because the word “deposit” appeared for the
first time in the sub-paragraph immediately succeeding that sub-paragraph where
the administrative proceeding is mentioned (sub-paragraph d). On the contrary, sub-paragraph (e) should be
related to sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) considering that the taking of
possession by the State of the private agricultural land placed under the CARP
is the next step after the DAR/LBP
has complied with notice requirements which include the offer of just compensation based
on the initial valuation by LBP. To
construe sub-paragraph (e) as the appellate court did would hamper the land
redistribution process because the government still has to wait for the
termination of the summary administrative proceeding before it can take
possession of the lands. Contrary to the
CA’s view, the deposit of provisional compensation is made even before the
summary administrative proceeding commences, or at least simultaneously with
it, once the landowner rejects the initial valuation (“offer”) by the LBP. Such deposit results from his rejection of
the DAR offer (based on the LBP’s initial valuation). Both the conduct of summary administrative
proceeding and deposit of provisional compensation follow as a consequence of
the landowner’s rejection under both the compulsory acquisition and VOS. This explains why the words “rejection or
failure to reply” and “rejection or no response from the landowner” are found
in sub-paragraphs (d) and (e). Such
“rejection”/“no response from the landowner” could not possibly refer to the
award of just compensation in the summary administrative proceeding considering
that the succeeding sub-paragraph (f) states that the landowner who disagrees with the same is granted the right to petition in court
for final determination of just compensation.
As it is, the CA’s interpretation would have loosely interchanged the
terms “rejected the offer” and “disagrees with the decision”, which is far from
what the entire provision plainly conveys.
We also find the
CA’s conclusion that petitioner’s interpretation of Section 16 (e) would render
unnecessary the filing of an administrative proceeding before the deposit is
made, as untenable. Said court raised a
perceived inconsistency or contradiction not found in the law. Precisely, the deposit of provisional
compensation is required to be made because the landowner has rejected the
initial valuation or amount offered by the DAR, which is then mandated to
conduct a summary administrative proceeding for preliminary determination of
just compensation. It may be that
the confusion in reading the provision
stems from the words “offer of the DAR”/“rejection or acceptance of the
offer” used in Section 16 (b) and (c),
which seemingly leaves out the active role of the LBP at the early stage of the
land acquisition procedure, whether under compulsory acquisition or VOS.
Section 18 of R.A. No. 6657 provides:
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 DAR and the LBP, in
accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and other
pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally determined by the court, as
the just compensation for the land.
x
x x x
Under the law, the LBP is charged with
the initial responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under land
reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking.[12] Once an expropriation proceeding or the
acquisition of private agricultural lands is commenced by the DAR, the
indispensable role of LBP begins. EO No.
405, issued on
The amount of “offer” which the DAR
gives to the landowner as compensation for his land, as mentioned in Section 16 (b) and (c), is based on the initial valuation by the LBP.[14] This then is the amount which may be accepted
or rejected by the landowner under the procedure established in Section
16. Perforce, such initial valuation by
the LBP also becomes the basis of the deposit of provisional compensation
pending final determination of just compensation, in accordance with
sub-paragraph (e).
The procedure for the
determination of compensation cases under Republic Act No. 6657, as devised by
this Court, commences with the valuation by the LBP of the lands taken by the
State from private owners under the land reform program. Based on
the valuation of the land by the LBP, the DAR makes an offer to the landowner
through a written notice. In case
the landowner rejects the offer, a summary administrative proceeding is held
and, afterwards, depending on the value of the land, the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD),
or the DARAB, fixes the price to be paid for the said land. If the landowner still does not agree with
the price so fixed, he may bring the matter to the RTC, acting as
DAR AO No. 02, series of 1996, “Revised Rules and Procedures Governing the Acquisition of Agricultural
Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to
Republic Act No. 6657”
reinforces the view that it is the initial valuation of the LBP which becomes
the basis of the provisional compensation deposit. The following procedural steps on Valuation
and Compensation under DAR AO No. 02 clearly show that such deposit of
provisional compensation is to be made by LBP either before or simultaneously
with the conduct of the summary administrative proceedings, without awaiting
the termination of the proceedings or rendition of judgment/decision by the
DARAB/RARAD/PARAD. Consequently, the
amount of just compensation determined by the DARAB/RARAD/PARAD cannot be the
deposit contemplated in Section 16 (e).
|
Steps |
Responsible Agency/Unit |
Activity |
Forms/Documents (Requirements) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Land Valuation and Compensation |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
LBP-LVLCO |
Receives
and evaluates the CF for completeness, consistency and document sufficiency.
Gathers additional valuation documents. |
|
|
14 |
LBP-LVLCO |
Determine
land valuation based on valuation inputs Note: CFs
where the land valuation amounts to more than |
Claims Valuation and Processing
Form (CVPF) |
|
15 |
LBP-LVLCO |
Prepares
and sends Memo of Valuation, Claim Folder Profile and Valuation Summary
(MOV-CFPVS) to PARO |
CARP Form
No. 9
(Memorandum of Valuation and Claim
Folder Profile and Valuation Summary) |
|
16 |
DARPO |
Receives
LBP’s MOV-CFPVS and ascertains the completeness of the data and information
therein. |
|
|
17 |
DARPO |
Sends
Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition to LO by personal delivery with
proof of service or by registered mail with return card, attaching copy of
MOV-CFPVS and inviting LO’s attention to the submission of documents required for payment of
claim. |
CARP Form
No. 10
(Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition) |
18 |
DARPO |
Posts
a copy of the Notice of Land Valuation (NLVA) for at least seven (7) working
days on the bulletin board of the provincial capitol, municipal and barangay halls
where the property is located and issues a Certification of Posting
Compliance. |
CARP Form
No. 11
(Certification of Posting Compliance) |
|
19 |
LO |
Replies
to Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition and submits documents required
for payment of compensation claim. If
LO accepts, proceed to D.1. If
LO rejects or fails to reply, proceed to D.2. |
|
|
x x x x D.2. Where LO rejects the Land Valuation |
|||
|
20 |
DARPO |
If the LO rejects the offered price or fails to reply within
thirty (30) days from receipt of the Notice of Land
Valuation and Acquisition, forwards to LBP the Request to Deposit the
compensation proceeds in cash and in bonds in the name of the LO |
CARP Form No. 10.a (LO’s Reply
to NLVA) CARP Form
No. 15
(Request for Deposit) |
|
21 |
DARPO |
Requests the DARAB/RARAD/ PARAD to conduct
administrative proceedings pursuant to DARAB guidelines, as the case maybe,
furnishing therein a copy each of the LO’s Letter of Rejection, Notice of Land
Valuation and Acquisition and LBP’s Memorandum of Valuation. |
CARP Form
No. 14 Advice to DARAB/ RARAD/PARAD |
|
22 |
LBP-LVO LBP-HO |
Deposits the compensation proceeds in the name of the
LO and issues Certification of Deposit to DAR through the PARO,
copy furnished the LO. The entire deposit may be withdrawn by the LO; however,
actual release of same shall be subject to LO’s submission of all
requirements for payment and execution of Confirmation of Coverage and
Transfer. |
CARP Form
No. 17 (Certification of Deposit) CARP Form
No. 17.a (Confirmation of Coverage and Transfer For Claims of Individual LOs
– Still Pending with DARAB) CARP Form
No. 17.b (Confirmation of Coverage and Transfer For Claims
of Corporate LOs – Still Pending with DARAB) |
|
23 |
DARPO |
Upon receipt of the Certification of Deposit from LBP,
transmits the same to the Register of Deeds concerned, including the approved
segregation/subdivision plan of subject property, if partially covered and simultaneously
requests the ROD to issue TCT in the name of RP. |
CARP Form
No. 18 (Request to Issue TCT in the name of RP) |
|
24 |
ROD |
Issues new TCT in the name of RP and forwards owner’s
duplicate certificate of title in the name of RP to LBP-LVO which furnishes
the PARO a certified xerox copy of the same. |
New TCT in
the name of RP and owner’s duplicate copy of title in the name of RP. |
|
25 |
DARAB/ RARAD/ PARAD |
Simultaneously
with Activity Nos. 22-24 above, the DARAB/ RARAD/PARAD conducts summary
administrative proceedings, renders decision and informs parties concerned of
the same. |
|
|
26 |
DARPO |
Upon receipt of the Certificate of Finality of the DARAB
Order, requests LBP to pay the LO in accordance with the DARAB decision;
requests LBP to prepare Confirmation of Coverage and Transfer for LO to
accomplish. Thereafter, LBP follows Activity Nos. 25-26 under D.1. In case
the LO still rejects DARAB decision, he may go to the Special Agrarian Reform
Court (SAC) for the final determination of just compensation. |
CARP Form
No. 17.c (Confirmation of Coverage and Transfer For Claims of Individual LOs
– Already decided by DARAB) CARP Form
No. 17.d (Confirmation of Coverage and Transfer) For Claims of Corporate LOs
– Already decided by DARAB) |
It must also be noted that under the DARAB
2003 Rules of Procedure, there is no requirement of delivery or deposit of provisional
compensation based on the judgment or award by the PARAD/RARAD or DARAB. Section 10, Rule XIX of the DARAB 2003
Rules only allows execution of judgments for compensation which have become
final and executory.[16] This only underscores the primary
responsibility of the LBP to submit an initial valuation at which DAR would
offer to purchase the land, and to deposit said amount after the landowner has
rejected the offer.
There is still another reason why we
cannot agree with the appellate court’s interpretation of Section 16, R.A. No.
6657. Petitioner had assumed a more
significant role as financial intermediary for the CARP after 1989, primarily
due to scandals and anomalies, which stalled its implementation during the
Aquino administration, involving overvalued private haciendas voluntarily offered by big landowners in collusion with
DAR officers and employees. The most notorious of these land scams even became
the subject of a joint inquiry conducted by the Senate and House of
Representatives committees on agrarian reform.
With government acquisition of large landholdings at inflated prices,
the farmers are at a losing end, as they can hardly afford the overpriced land.[17]
Against this backdrop of exposed irregularities
and to ensure the success of the CARP, former President Corazon C. Aquino
issued EO No. 405 which transferred the primary responsibility of determining
land valuation and compensation for all lands covered under CARP from the DAR
to the LBP, a specialized government bank.
The intent is to accelerate program implementation by tapping the LBP’s
professional expertise, as expressed in the EO’s whereas clause:
WHEREAS,
the Land Bank of the
WHEREAS,
the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, particularly
on the matter of acquisition and distribution of private agricultural lands,
may be accelerated by streamlining certain administrative procedures in land
valuation and compensation;
NOW,
THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the
SECTION
1. The Land Bank of the
The objective of the procedures on
land valuation provided by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)
as amplified by the issuances of the DAR/DARAB is to enforce the constitutional
guarantee of just compensation for the taking of private agricultural lands
placed under the CARP. It must be
stressed that the DAR’s authority to determine just compensation is merely
preliminary. On the other hand, under Section 1 of EO
No. 405, series of 1990, the LBP is charged with the initial responsibility of
determining the value of lands placed under land reform and the just
compensation to be paid for their taking.
In both voluntary and compulsory acquisitions, wherein the landowner
rejects the offer, the DAR opens an account in the name of the landowner and
conducts a summary administrative proceeding.
If the landowner disagrees with the valuation, the matter may be brought
to the RTC, acting as a special agrarian court. But as with the DAR-awarded compensation,
LBP’s valuation of lands covered by CARL is considered only as an initial
determination, which is not conclusive, as it is the RTC, sitting as a Special
Agrarian Court, that should make the final determination of just compensation,
taking into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657
and the applicable DAR regulations.[18] It is now settled that the valuation
of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial function which is
vested with the RTC acting as
Although
under the CARL of 1988, the landowners are entitled to withdraw the
amount deposited in their behalf pending the final resolution of the case
involving the final valuation of his property,[20]
the SAC may not, as in this case, order the petitioner to
deposit or deliver the much higher amount adjudged by the RARAD considering
that it already complied with the deposit of provisional compensation by
depositing the amount of its initial valuation which was rejected by the
respondent. And while the DARAB Rules
of Procedure provides for execution pending appeal upon “meritorious
grounds,”[21]
respondent has not established such meritorious reasons for allowing execution of
the RARAD decision pending final determination of just compensation by the
court.
As the Court had previously declared, the LBP is
primarily responsible for the valuation and determination of compensation for
all private lands. It has the discretion
to approve or reject the land valuation and just compensation for a private
agricultural land placed under the CARP.
In case the LBP disagrees with the valuation of land and determination
of just compensation by a party, the P10,294,721.00. In view of the
substantial difference in the valuations -- the initial valuation by the LBP
being only P1,145,806.06 -- the more prudent course is to await the
final resolution of the issue of just compensation already filed with said
court.
Lastly, the Court finds no merit in the contention
of respondent that the RARAD’s decision had already become final due to failure
of the petitioner to appeal the same to the Board, in accordance with Section
5, Rule XIX of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure. It must be noted that said Rules was adopted
only on
SECTION
1. Transitory Provisions. These rules shall govern all cases filed on
or after its effectivity. All cases pending
with the Board and the Adjudicators, prior to the date of effectivity of these
Rules, shall be governed by the DARAB Rules prevailing at the time of their
filing.
The
applicable rule is Section 2, Rule XIV (Judicial Review) of the Revised Rules
of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board which provides:
Section
2. Just
Compensation Cases to the Special Agrarian Courts. --
The decision, resolution or order of the Adjudicator or the Board on
land valuation or determination of just compensation, may be brought to the
proper
WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
|
A
T T E S T A T I O N
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.
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice Chairperson, Third Division |
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the 1987 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.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
* Designated additional member per Special
Order No. 843 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 52-61. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando
and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Edgardo F.
Sundiam.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] See Association
of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R.
Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744 & 79777,
[12] Republic
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122256,
[13] Gabatin
v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 148223, November 25, 2004, 444
SCRA 176, 187, citing Landbank of the
Philippines v. Banal, G.R. No. 143276, July 20, 2004, 434 SCRA 543,
548-549; Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Wycoco, G.R. Nos. 140160 and 146733, January 13, 2004, 419 SCRA 67, 76;
and Republic
v. Court of Appeals, supra at 764.
[14] See Landbank
of the Philippines v. Banal, supra at 548.
[15] Land
Bank of the
[16] SECTION 10. Execution of Judgments for Just Compensation which have become Final
and Executory. The Sheriff shall
enforce a writ of execution of a final judgment for compensation by demanding
for the payment of the amount stated in the writ of execution in cash and bonds
against the Agrarian Reform Fund in the custody of the LBP in accordance with
RA 6657, and the LBP shall pay the same in accordance with the final judgment
and the writ of execution within five (5) days from the time the landowner
accordingly executes and submits to the LBP the corresponding deed/s or
transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the muniments of title to
the property in accordance with Section 16 (c) of R.A. 6657.
[17] See “The Garchitorena Land Scam” by GMA
NewsTV at <http://www.gmanews.tv/story/182211/the-garchitorena-land-scam>. See also
“Philippines: Over-valuation of Land Awarded Under Agrarian Reform
Program” posted by Emergency Network at <http://www.fian.org/cases/letter-campaigns/ philippines-over-valuation-of-land-awarded-under-agrarian-reform-program?set_language=en>;
Not “the biggest distribution in history” by Albert M. Lagliva, published in
the July 2002 issue of the Intersect, article posted at <http://www.jesuits.ph/ignaciana/Ministries/FINAL%20ICSI%20WEB/agri-cont.htm>;
and “Land Reform for the Elite:
Voluntary Offers to Sell” by David
Wurfel, University of Windsor, posted at <http://davidwurfel.ca/philippines/land-reform-for-the-elite-voluntary-offers-to-sell-under-carp>.
[18] See Land
Bank of the
[19] Apo
Fruits Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164195, February 6, 2007,
514 SCRA 537, 560, citing Land Bank of the Phils. v. Wycoco, 464
Phil. 83, 94 (2004); Export Processing Zone
Authority v. Dulay, No. L-59603,
[20] See Land Bank of the
[21] Sec. 2, Rule XX, 2003 DARAB Rules of
Procedure.
[22] Land
Bank of the