G.R. No. 171101

G.R. No. 171101 - HACIENDA LUISITA, INC., PETITIONER, V. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

LUISITA INDUSTRIAL PARK CORPORATION AND RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION.

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

BERSAMIN, J.:

I concur with the Resolution the Court issues today by way of resolving the various motions filed against the decision dated July 21, 2011.

I respectfully dissent on two aspects, however, and I humbly opine that: one, the reckoning date for purposes of determining just compensation should be left to the DAR and Land Bank, and, ultimately, to the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) to determine; and two, the landowner should be compensated for the value of the homelots granted to the farmworkers-beneficiaries (FWBs) pursuant to the discredited stock distribution plan (SDP).

Let me explain my position.

In the decision of July 5, 2011, the Court upheld the PARCs assailed resolutions placing the agricultural lands subject of the SDP under compulsory coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), and declared HLI entitled to just compensation to be reckoned from November 21, 1989.

Todays Resolution continues to follow the same reckoning date of November 21, 1989 due to its being the date when PARC approved HLIs SDP and thereby placed the affected agricultural lands under the coverage of CARP. The Resolution explains that it was upon the approval of the SDP that the farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs) had come to be considered to own and possess the affected agricultural lands.

The determination of when the taking occurred is an integral and vital part of the determination and computation of just compensation. The nature and character of land at the time of its taking are the principal criteria to determine just compensation to the landowner.^{^[1]} In National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[2] the Court emphasized the importance of the time of taking in fixing the amount of just compensation, thus:

xxx [T]he Court xxx invariably held that the time of taking is the critical date in determining lawful or just compensation. Justifying this stance, Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) Enrique Fernando, speaking for the Court in Municipality of La Carlota vs. The Spouses Felicidad Baltazar and Vicente Gan, said, xxx the owner as is the constitutional intent, is paid what he is entitled to according to the value of the property so devoted to public use as of the date of the taking. From that time, he had been deprived thereof. He had no choice but to submit. He is not, however, to be despoiled of such a right. No less than the fundamental law guarantees just compensation. It would be an injustice to him certainly if from such a period, he could not recover the value of what was lost. There could be on the other hand, injustice to the expropriator if by a delay in the collection, the increment in price would accrue to the owner. The doctrine to which this Court has been committed is intended precisely to avoid either contingency fraught with unfairness.[3] (emphasis supplied)

It is my humble submission, therefore, that the factual issue of when the taking had taken place as to the affected agricultural lands should not be separated from the determination of just compensation by DAR, Land Bank and SAC. Accordingly, I urge that the Court should leave the matter of the reckoning date to be hereafter determined by the DAR and Land Bank pursuant to Section 18 of Republic Act No. 6657.[4] Should the parties disagree thereon, the proper SAC will then resolve their disagreement as an integral part of a petition for determination of just compensation made pursuant to Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, to wit:

Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act.

The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act.

The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision.

It appears to me that the homelots granted to the FWBs under the SDP do not form part of the total area of the agricultural lands to be turned over to DAR for distribution to the qualified FWBs for which the landowner will be justly compensated. If my impression is correct, I fear that the result will be unfair should the landowner not be justly compensated for the value of the homelots. In such a situation, the taking will be confiscatory and unconstitutional.

I submit, therefore, that HLI as the landowner should be justly compensated also for the homelots.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice

[1] Republic v. Cancio,G.R. No. 170147, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 346 ; National Power Corporation v. Henson, G.R. No. 129998, December 29, 1998, 300 SCRA 751, 756

[2] G.R. No. 113194, March 11, 1996, 254 SCRA 577

[4] 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 LBP or as may be finally determined by the court as just compensation for the land.