SECOND
DIVISION
|
LAND BANK OF THE Petitioner, - versus - MAGIN FERRER, ANTONIO V.
FERRER, and RAMON V. FERRER, represented by their Attorney-in-fact, ATTY.
RAFAEL VILLAROSA, Respondents. x---------------------------------------------x DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
represented by Secretary NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, Petitioner, - versus - ANTONIO V. FERRER and RAMON V.
FERRER,
Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 172230 G.R. No. 179421 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February 2, 2011 |
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Challenged in these consolidated
petitions for review are the August 30, 2005[1] and
the January 24, 2007[2]
Decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A. G.R. SP No. 88012 and C.A.
G.R. SP No. 88008, respectively. The separate CA decisions affirmed the decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Guimba, Nueva Ecija (RTC). The CA ruled that Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 6657, and not Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27, should govern in
the determination of just compensation after the effectivity of said act.
The Facts
The consolidated records show that on
In
their petition, the Ferrers alleged that they were the absolute owners pro-indiviso
of a parcel of agricultural land with an area of 11.7297 hectares located in
Bagong Bayan,
The
Ferrers further alleged that they found out that an Emancipation Patent
covering 3.5773 hectares of the subject agricultural land was secretly issued
in the name of Alfredo Carbonel, one of its occupants, without payment of just
compensation. The LBP then fixed the just compensation at a very low price of P132,685.67
or approximately P12,050.00 per hectare in violation of the guidelines
in R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as “The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.”
They asserted that the just compensation of the subject agricultural land
should at least be computed at P250,000.00 per hectare, or the total sum
of P2,930,000.00 for the entire 11.7297 hectares considering that it was
irrigated and strategically located.
On
the other hand, the LBP and the DAR were of the position that the subject
agricultural property had been placed under the coverage of the Operation Land
Transfer (OLT) Program and, therefore, the provisions of P.D. No. 27 (Emancipation
Decree of Tenants) and/or Executive Order (E.O.) No. 228 (Declaring
Full Land Ownership to Qualified Farmer-Beneficiaries covered by PD 27;
Determining the Value of Remaining Unvalued Rice and Corn Lands subject of PD
27; and Providing for the Manner of Payment By the Farmer Beneficiary and Mode
of Compensation to the Landowner) should
apply. Thus, they insisted that the value of the subject agricultural land be in
accordance with P.D. No. 27.
In
the proceedings below, the RTC appointed three (3) commissioners who were tasked
to determine the amount of just compensation to be paid to the Ferrers. On
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered:
1.
Fixing
the just compensation for plaintiffs’ 4.6203 hectares of land at P208,000.00
per hectare or a total of P961, 022.50;
2.
Ordering
the defendants DAR and LBP to pay the above amount of money to the plaintiffs
in the manner provided by law and existing legislations.
SO ORDERED.
Unsatisfied with the decision, the
LBP and the DAR filed separate motions for reconsideration which were both denied
by the RTC in its Order dated
Thereafter, the LBP and the DAR filed
their respective petitions for review before the CA. The LBP petition was
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 88012 and raffled to the Eighth Division while the
DAR petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 88008 and raffled to the Eleventh
Division.
On
As earlier stated, the two divisions
of the CA similarly ruled that R.A. No. 6657, and not P.D. No. 27, should
govern in the determination of just compensation in this case. They reasoned
out that although the subject property was tenanted and devoted to rice
production in 1972 when P.D. No. 27 was issued, the just compensation cannot be
based on the value of the property in 1972 because there was then no taking of
the subject land as there was no payment yet to the private respondents. The CA explained that the land shall be
considered taken only upon payment of just compensation because it would complete
the agrarian reform process. The CA further
stated that R.A. No. 6657 was the law of primary jurisdiction while P.D. No. 27
and other agrarian laws not inconsistent with R.A. No. 6657 shall only apply
suppletorily.
The LBP and the DAR filed their
respective motions for reconsideration but these were denied by the CA in its resolutions
dated
Dissatisfied with the CA decisions,
the LBP and the DAR filed their separate petitions before this Court. The LBP
petition was docketed as G.R. No. 172230 and the DAR petition as G.R. No.
179421. On
Both petitions basically raise this
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling
that RA 6657, rather than P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228, is the law that should
apply in the determination of just compensation for the subject agricultural
land.
Positions of the Parties
The
LBP and the DAR basically argue that P.D. No. 27, as reaffirmed by E.O. No. 228,
should be applied in determining the just compensation for the subject
property. They contend that P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 prescribe the formula
in determining the just compensation of rice and corn lands tenanted as of
As
to R.A. No. 6657, both the LBP and the DAR insist that it applies only to
ricelands and cornlands not tenanted as of
With
respect to the appointment of commissioners, the LBP and the DAR argue that
there was no legal basis therefor because 1) there were no long accounts or
difficult questions of fact that required the expertise and know-how of the
commissioners; and 2) the formula for just compensation was already provided
under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228.
On the other hand, the Ferrers adopted
the common ruling of the CA stating that it did not err in applying the
provisions of R.A. No. 6657 in fixing the just compensation for the subject
property.
The Court’s Ruling
The issue as to which agrarian law
between P. D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 and R.A.
No. 6657 should apply in the determination of just compensation has been laid
to rest in a number of cases. In the
case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Hon. Eli G.
C. Natividad,[6] it was
ruled 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 (RA 6657) before the completion of this 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
Section 17 of RA 6657 which is particularly relevant, providing as it does the guideposts for
the determination of just compensation, reads as follows:
Sec. 17. Determination
of Just Compensation.—In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of 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 farm-workers 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.
It would
certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline
provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR’s failure to determine the
just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just
compensation should be determined in accordance with RA
6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that
just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial,
full and ample. [Emphases
supplied]
In Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Manuel O Gallego, Jr.,[8] the Court handed down the same ruling.
Thus:
The Court has already ruled on the
applicability of agrarian laws, namely, P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 in relation to
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, in prior cases concerning just compensation.
In Paris v. Alfeche,[9]
the Court held that the provisions of
R.A. No. 6657 are also applicable to the agrarian reform process of lands
placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228, which has not been
completed upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657. Citing Land Bank of the
We cannot see why Sec. 18 of RA [No.] 6657
should not apply to rice and corn lands under PD [No.] 27. Section 75 of RA
[No.] 6657 clearly states that the provisions of PD [No.] 27 and EO [No.] 228
shall only have a suppletory effect. Section 7 of the Act also provides –
Sec. 7. Priorities.—The
DAR, in coordination with the PARC shall plan and program the acquisition and
distribution of all agricultural lands through a period of (10) years from the
effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired and distributed as follows:
Phase One: Rice and Corn
lands under P.D. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all private lands
voluntarily offered by the owners of 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
(emphasis supplied).
This eloquently demonstrates that RA [No.] 6657
includes PD [No.] 27 lands among the properties which the DAR shall acquire and
distribute to the landless. And to facilitate the acquisition and distribution
thereof, Secs. 16, 17 and 18 of the Act should be adhered to. In Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines v. Secretary
of Agrarian Reform, this
Court applied the provisions (of) RA 6657 to rice and corn lands when it upheld
the constitutionality of the payment of just compensation for PD [No.] 27 lands
through the different modes stated in Sec. 18.[11]
Particularly, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, where the agrarian reform
process in said case “is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid
private respondents has yet to be settled,” the Court held therein that just compensation should be determined and the
process concluded under R.A. No. 6657.[12]
The retroactive application of R.A. No. 6657
is not only statutory but is also founded on equitable considerations. In Lubrica
v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[13]
the Court declared that it would be
highly inequitable on the part of the landowners therein to compute just
compensation using the values at the time of taking in 1972, and not at the
time of payment, considering that the government and the farmer-beneficiaries
have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof
has not yet been transferred in their names. The same equitable consideration is applicable to the factual milieu of
the instant case. The records show that respondents’ property had been placed
under the agrarian reform program in 1972 and had already been distributed to
the beneficiaries but respondents have yet to receive just compensation due
them. [Emphases supplied]
The above rulings were reiterated in
the recent cases of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rizalina Gustilo Barrido
and Heirs of Romeo Barrido[14] and
Land Bank of the
The CA was, therefore, correct in
ruling that the agrarian reform process in this particular case was still
incomplete because the just compensation due to the Ferrers had yet to be
settled. Since R.A. No. 6657 was already in effectivity before the completion
of the process, the just compensation should be
determined and the process concluded under this law.
With respect to the appointment
of the commissioners, it is an issue not properly brought and ventilated in the
trial courts below and only raised for the first time on appeal. At any rate, the appointment was proper
because the applicable law is R.A. No.
6657.
WHEREFORE,
the petitions for review on certiorari are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice 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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 172230), pp. 46-57. Penned by
Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a member of this Court), with
Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. and Associate Justice Magdangal M. De
Leon, concurring.
[2] Rollo (G.R. No. 179421), pp. 27-36. Penned by
Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, with Associate Justice Elvi John
S. Asuncion and Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas, concurring.
[3] Rollo (G.R. No. 172230), pp. 59-60.
[4] Rollo (G.R. No. 179421), pp. 38-39.
[5]
[6] 497 Phil
738 (2005).
[7] 416 Phil. 473 (2001).
[8] G.R. No. 173226,
[9] 416 Phil 473 (2001).
[10] 378
Phil. 1248 (1999).
[11] Association
of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Hon. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, 256 Phil. 777
(1989).
[12]
497 Phil. 738 (2005).
[13]
G.R. No. 170220,
[14]
G.R. No. 183688,
[15]
G.R. No. 170685,