Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
FIRST
DIVISION
|
LAND
BANK OF THE |
|
G.R.
No. 175055 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VELASCO,
JR.,* |
|
- versus - |
|
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
** |
|
|
|
Acting Chairperson, |
|
|
|
BRION,*** |
|
|
|
|
|
Heirs
of MAXIMO PUYAT and |
|
PERLAS-BERNABE,**** JJ. |
|
GLORIA
PUYAT, represented by |
|
|
|
Attorney-in-Fact
Marissa Puyat, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
June
27, 2022 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S
I O N
In agrarian reform cases, when the acquisition
process under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27 remains incomplete upon the
effectivity of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657, the process should be completed
under the new law.[1]
Before the Court is a Petition for Review[2] assailing the June 28, 2006
Decision[3] of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 86582. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision
dated May 11, 2004 as amended by the order dated September 3, 2004 is AFFIRMED
subject to the modification that the reckoning of the 6% interest per annum
shall be from March 21, 1990.
Costs of suit shall be paid by
the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Factual Antecedents
Gloria
and Maximo Puyat,[5]
both deceased, are the registered owners of a parcel of riceland consisting of 46.8731
hectares located in Barangay Bakod Bayan,
The
records do not disclose when the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed
44.3090 hectares of Puyats land under Operation Land Transfer pursuant to PD 27. It is, however, clear that the DAR issued
several emancipation patents in favor of various farmer-beneficiaries in
December 1989.[6] All of the said patents were annotated on
Puyats Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1773 on March 20, 1990, and
thereby caused the concomitant partial cancellation of Puyats title.
The
Puyats did not receive any compensation for the cancellation of their title
over the awarded portions of the subject property.
It
was only on September 18, 1992 (more than two years after the DAR awarded the
property to farmer-beneficiaries) that the Land Bank of the P2,012.50 per hectare or a total of P92,752.10. Deducting the farmers lease rentals
amounting to P5,241.20, the Land Bank recommended the payment to the
landowners of the net value of P87,510.90.[8] Respondents received Land Banks initial
valuation together with the Notice of Acquisition and Valuation Form, and
rejected the valuation for being ridiculously low.
The
heirs of Puyat filed a complaint for determination and payment of just
compensation[9]
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Respondents
presented the supervising agriculturalist from the City Agro-Industrial Office,
who testified that the average palay production for Barangay Bakod Bayan ranges from 70 to 80 cavans per
hectare.[10] Another officer from the same office
testified that the average annual palay production is around 65 cavans per
hectare.[11] The zoning officer of the City Planning and
Development Office testified that the subject property is located in the
agro-industrial district, which is near the central business district of P10.00 per
square meter.[13]
Respondents prayed that their 468,731
square meter-property be valued at P100,000.00 per hectare.[14]
The
Land Bank and the DAR answered that the valuation was made in strict compliance
with the formula provided for lands acquired under PD 27 and Executive Order
(EO) No. 228. DAR presented a memorandum
dated 1976,[15]
which shows that the average gross production for three years prior to 1976 was
23 cavans[16]
per hectare only. It maintained that the
valuation of respondents property should be made using the prevailing rates on
October 21, 1972, or the date when PD 27 took effect. Land Bank, on the other hand, presented its
Claims Processing Form,[17] which showed that it set
the valuation at P2,012.50. per hectare.[18]
Ruling of the Regional Trial
Court
The
trial court first determined what law should be applied in determining the just
compensation due to respondents. According
to the trial court, while the property was appropriated pursuant to PD 27, its
valuation should be made in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657.
The
trial court found that respondents property could yield an average of 65
cavans per hectare, per harvest season.
It could be planted with rice and corn.
It is located in an agro-industrial area, accessible by concrete roads, and
properly serviced by telecommunication and other utilities. The BIR pegged the zonal value for this area
at P10 per square meter, or P100,000.00 per hectare.
Taking
the above factors in consideration, the court declared that the reasonable
compensation for respondents property should be P100,000.00 per
hectare.
Since
the government took the respondents property on March 20, 1990 (the date when the emancipation patents were
annotated on respondents TCT No. 1773) without giving the respondents just
compensation for such taking, there was delay in payment which justifies the
imposition of legal interest. Thus, the
trial court ordered the DAR, through the Land Bank, to pay 6% legal interest
per annum from the date of taking until the amount is fully paid.
The
trial court disposed of the case thus:
WHEREFORE, all premises
considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Department of
Agrarian Reform through the defendant Land Bank of the Philippines to pay
plaintiffs Gloria Puyat and all the Heirs of Maximo Puyat, thru their
Attorney-in-Fact Marissa Puyat the total amount of Four Million Six Hundred
Eighty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Ten (P4,687,310.00) Philippine
Currency, representing the just compensation of the property with a total area
of 46.8731 hectares, situated in Barangay Bakod Bayan, Cabanatuan City, Nueva
Ecija, covered by T.C.T No. 1773 with 6% legal interest per annum from date of
taking (which the Court determines to be in 1990) until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.[19]
Upon
Land Banks motion, the trial court modified its decision by reducing the
compensable area to the actual area acquired by the DAR. The court explained:
Considering
that only 44.3090 hectares [were] distributed to farmer-beneficiaries this
should only be the area to be compensated at the rate of P100,000.00 per
hectare for a total amount of Four Million Four Hundred Thirty Thousand Nine
Hundred (P4,430,900.00) Pesos.[20]
x x x x
Wherefore, the Motion for
Reconsideration is partially Granted.
The Decision dated May 11, 2004
is hereby amended and defendant Department of Agrarian Reform through the Land
Bank of the Philippines [is] hereby directed to pay plaintiffs Gloria Puyat and
the Heirs of Maximo Puyat, thru their Attorney-in-Fact Marissa Puyat, the
amount of Four Million Four Hundred Thirty Thousand Nine Hundred (P4,430,900.00)
Pesos representing the just compensation of the covered 44.3090 hectares of
their property (covered by TCT No. 1773) situated at Barangay Bakod Bayan,
Cabanatuan City, which [were] actually distributed to farmer-beneficiaries with
6% legal interest per annum from the date of taking (in 1990) until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.[21]
Land
Bank appealed the modified decision to the CA.
It raised two main issues. First, it argued that the trial court
erred in computing the just compensation using the factors provided in Section
17 of RA 6657. Since respondents land
was acquired in accordance with PD 27, its valuation should likewise be limited
to the formula mandated under PD 27 and EO 228.
Second, if the court followed the formula provided for
lands acquired under PD 27 and EO 228, a 6% yearly compounded interest is
already provided therein, hence the additional 6% legal interest imposed by the
trial court would be redundant. The
prayer reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
after due consideration, a DECISION be rendered ANNULLING AND SETTING
ASIDE the Decision dated 11 May 2004 x x x and the Order dated 03 September
2004 x x x for being CONTRARY TO P.D. NO. 27 AND E.O. NO. 228, and RELEVANT/MATERIAL
EVIDENCE PRESENTED, and TO ISSUE another Decision UPHOLDING
the LAND VALUATION based on the foregoing laws and evidence amounting to
EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE PESOS & 86/100 (PHP
89,171.86) as the just compensation for the subject landholding.
x x x x[22]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The
appellate court noted that the question presented is what law should be used in
the determination of just compensation of lands acquired pursuant to PD 27.[23] Corollarily, once a court determines which
law governs just compensation, can its decision be limited to the formula
provided in the administrative orders of the DAR?
The
CA held that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function,
which cannot be unduly restricted by requiring the courts to strictly adhere to
formulae appearing in legislative or executive acts. Being a judicial function, courts can choose
to rely on the factors enumerated in Section 17 of RA 6657, even if these
factors do not appear in PD 27 or EO 228.
Such reliance cannot be assailed as irregular or illegal considering
that the courts would still rely on reasonable factors for ascertaining just
compensation.[24]
The
CA also explained that the imposition of legal interest on the just
compensation is not an error. The legal
interest was properly imposed considering that the Puyats were deprived of
their property since March 20, 1990 without receiving just compensation therefor. However, in order to be precise, the CA
modified the RTC Decision by imposing the legal interest not from 1990, but
from March 20, 1990, which is the date when the emancipation patents were
inscribed on TCT No. 1773.
Land
Bank moved for a reconsideration[25] of the adverse decision,
which motion was denied by the appellate court in its October 16, 2006
Resolution.[26]
Issues
1. Can lands acquired pursuant to PD 27 be
valued using the factors appearing in Section 17 of RA 6657?
2. Is it proper to impose the 6% legal interest
per annum on the unpaid just compensation?
3. Should the case be remanded to the trial
court for the recomputation of just compensation using Section 17 of RA 6657,
as amended by RA 9700?
Land
Bank argues that the just compensation must be valued at the time of taking of
the property. Since respondents lands
were acquired pursuant to PD 27, it is deemed taken under the law operative
since October 21, 1972 (the effectivity date of PD 27). Thus, Land Bank posits that the CA erred in
computing the just compensation based on Section 17 of RA 6657, a law that came
into effect after the time of
taking.
Further,
according to Land Bank, if PD 27 and EO 228 are to be applied, the interest
rate is already provided for under DAR AO No. 13, series of 1994, as amended by
DAR AO No. 2, series of 2004. Thus, the
6% interest on the just compensation imposed by the trial and appellate courts
is erroneous for being a double interest and should be deleted.
Our Ruling
Which law determines
the just compensation for lands acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27?
The
Court has already resolved the first question posed by Land Bank in several
decisions.[27] It has been held that, when the government
takes property pursuant to PD 27, but does not pay the landowner his just
compensation until after RA 6657 has taken effect in 1988, it becomes more
equitable to determine the just compensation using RA 6657. Land
Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad[28] explained it thus:
Land
Banks contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian
reform on October 21, 1972, the time of the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just
compensation should be based on the value of the property as of that time and
not at the time of possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office
of the President, Malacaang,
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
x
x x x
It would certainly be
inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by
PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DARs failure to determine 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.[29]
In
the case at bar, respondents title to the property was cancelled and awarded
to farmer-beneficiaries on March 20, 1990.
In 1992, Land Bank approved the initial valuation for the just
compensation that will be given to respondents.
Both the taking of respondents property and the valuation occurred
during the effectivity of RA 6657. When
the acquisition process under PD 27 remains incomplete and is overtaken by RA
6657, the process should be completed under RA 6657, with PD 27 and EO 228 having
suppletory effect only.[30] This means that PD 27 applies only insofar as
there are gaps in RA 6657; where RA
6657 is sufficient, PD 27 is superseded.
Among the matters where RA 6657 is sufficient is the determination of
just compensation. In Section 17
thereof, the legislature has provided for the factors that are determinative of
just compensation. Petitioner cannot
insist on applying PD 27 which would render Section 17 of RA 6657 inutile.
Interest rate awarded for the delay
The
trial and appellate
courts imposed an interest of 6% per annum on the
just compensation to be given to the
respondents based on the finding that Land Bank was guilty of delay.
Land
Bank maintains that the formula contained in DAR AO No. 13, series of 1994,
already provides for 6% compounded interest.
Thus, the additional
imposition of 6% interest by the trial and appellate courts is unwarranted.[31]
There
is a fallacy in Land Banks position.
The 6% interest rate imposed by the trial and appellate courts would be
a double imposition of interest had the courts below also applied DAR AO No.
13, series of 1994. But the fact remains
that the courts below did not apply DAR AO No. 13. In fact, that is precisely the reason why
Land Bank appealed the trial courts decision to the CA, and the latters
decision to this Court. Therefore, Land
Bank is cognizant that the lower courts imposition of the 6% interest cannot
constitute a double imposition of a legal interest.
The
Court is not unaware that current jurisprudence sets the interest rate for delay in payments in agrarian cases at
12% per annum.[32]
In the case at bar, however, the
respondents did not contest the interest awarded by the lower courts and
instead asked for the affirmance in toto
of the appellate courts decision.[33] In keeping with the demands of due process,
therefore, the Court deems it fit not to disturb the interest rate imposed by
the courts below.
No need to remand
After the parties filed their respective
memorandum in 2007 and submitted the case for resolution,[34] Congress passed a new
agrarian reform law, RA 9700, which further
amended RA 6657, as amended. RA 9700, entitled
An Act
Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), Extending the
Acquisition and Distribution of all Agricultural Lands, Instituting Necessary
Reforms, Amending for the Purpose Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, as amended,
and Appropriating Funds Therefor, took effect on July 1, 2009.[35] It provides in Section 5 thereof that all
valuations that are subject to challenge by the landowners shall be completed
and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, as
amended. Section 5 of RA 9700 is
reproduced below:
SECTION
5. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to
read as follows:
SEC. 7. Priorities. The DAR, in coordination with
the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) shall plan and program the
final acquisition and distribution of
all remaining unacquired and undistributed agricultural lands from the
effectivity of this Act until June 30, 2014.
Lands shall be acquired
and distributed as follows:
Phase
One: During the five (5)-year extension
period hereafter all remaining lands above fifty (50) hectares shall be covered
for purposes of agrarian reform upon the effectivity of this Act. xxx rice and corn lands under Presidential
Decree No. 27; xxx: Provided,
furthermore, That all previously acquired lands wherein valuation is subject to
challenge by landowners shall be
completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657,
as amended; x x x[36]
Relatedly, RA 9700 amended Section 17 of RA
6657 by adding factors for the determination of just compensation, i.e., the value of standing crop and
seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of the BIR, translated into a
basic formula by the DAR. The amended
provision reads as follows:
SECTION
7. Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby
further amended to read as follows:
SEC.
17. Determination of Just Compensation.
In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the
value of the standing crop, the current value of like properties, its nature,
actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations,
the assessment made by government assessors, and seventy percent (70%) of the
zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), translated into a
basic formula by the DAR shall be considered, subject to the final decision of
the proper court. The social and
economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the
Government to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured
from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered
as additional factors to determine its valuation.[37]
Thus,
in a Manifestation and Motion dated January 21, 2010,[38] Land Bank submits that RA
9700 has rendered its Petition moot and that the case should now be remanded to the trial courts so that
the valuation for respondents property may be made in accordance with Section
17 of RA 6657, as amended by
RA 9700.
Respondents
opposed. They maintained that there is
no more need to remand the case to the trial court because their property has
already been valued using Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended.[39]
There
is no merit in Land Banks motion to remand the case. RA 9700 took effect at a time when this case
was already submitted for resolution. All
the issues had been joined and the parties had argued exhaustively on their
various contentions. The issue regarding
the applicability of RA 9700 to the instant case was not among those discussed
in the parties memoranda. For us to
rule that RA 9700 decrees a remand of the case would be abhorrent to the rules
of fair play.
Moreover,
Land Banks position that RA 9700 decrees a wholesale remand of all cases
involving the determination of just compensation so that they may all be resolved
using Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended
by RA 9700, no matter in what stage of proceedings they are found is a
contentious issue that should be ventilated in a proper case. It appears that the DAR itself, in
implementing RA 9700, does not share Land Banks position that all pending
valuations shall be processed in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended by RA 9700. Administrative
Order No. 02, series of 2009 (DAR AO No. 02-09), which is the Implementing
Rules of RA 9700 and which DAR formulated pursuant to Section 31[40] of RA 9700, provides:
VI. Transitory
Provision
x x x x
[W]ith
respect to land valuation, all Claim Folders received by LBP prior to July 1, 2009 shall be valued in accordance with Section 17
of R.A. No. 6657 prior to its
amendment by R.A. No. 9700.
The Implementing Rules of RA 9700 thus authorize
the valuation of lands in accordance with the old Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended (prior to further amendment
by RA 9700), so long as the claim folders for such lands have been received by
Land Bank prior to its amendment by RA 9700 in 2009. In the instant case, Land Bank received the
claim folder for the respondents property in 1992,[41] which was long before the
effectivity of RA 9700 in 2009. Following
DARs own understanding of RA 9700, it appears that there is no reason to
remand the case since the valuation can be determined in accordance with the old Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended
(prior to further amendment by RA 9700).
Further,
DAR AO No. 02-09 makes clear distinctions with respect to the laws that should
govern the valuation of lands, to wit:
IV. Statement of Policies
x
x x x
D. Land
Valuation and Landowner Compensation
1. The compensation for lands covered under RA
9700 shall be:
a) the amount determined in accordance with
the criteria provided for in Section 7
of the said law and existing guidelines on land valuation; x x x
2. All previously acquired lands wherein
valuation is subject to challenge by landowners shall be completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of
R.A. No. 6657, as amended.
In
like manner, claims over tenanted rice and corn lands under P.D. No. 27 and
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 228 whether submitted or not to the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) and not yet approved for payment shall be valued under R.A. No. 6657, as amended.
Landholdings
covered by P.D. No. 27 and falling under Phase I of R.A. No. 9700 shall be valued under R.A. No. 9700.
The above shows DARs opinion that valuations
shall be made either under RA
9700 or under Section
17 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended. It
appears that lands yet to be acquired and distributed by the DAR when RA 9700
took effect shall be valued using RA 9700, while lands already acquired but
unpaid when RA 9700 took effect shall be valued using Section 17 of R.A. No.
6657, as amended (i.e., as amended by earlier amendatory laws, prior to further
amendment by RA 9700). The
administrative order, therefore, negates Land Banks contention that all
pending valuations should make use of Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended by RA 9700.
Land Banks contention must await resolution in a proper case
where the issue is timely raised and properly argued by the parties. The instant case is not the suitable
venue.
Lastly,
in arriving at the valuations for respondents property, the Court also
considers that the courts below had already followed Section 17 of RA 6657, as
amended. That RA 9700 added two new
factors to the said provision, is not sufficient ground for remanding the case
under the factual milieu of this case. To remand the case now for another
valuation, so that the two new factors may also be considered, appears
impractical and inequitable. The
respondents have been deprived of their property for 22 years. It is time that they receive what has long
been due them.
No wanton disregard of
the factors provided under Republic Act No. 6657
Land Bank maintains that, assuming arguendo that RA 6657 is the applicable
law, the trial and appellate courts wantonly disregarded the basic valuation
formula in DAR AO No. 5, series of 1998, which implements Section 17 of RA
6657. It insists that courts are not at
liberty to dispense of these formulations at will. Land Bank thus asks that the case be remanded
to the trial court for a proper determination of the just compensation in
accordance with DAR AO No. 5, series of 1998.
We disagree.
The trial and appellate courts arrived
at the just compensation with due consideration for the factors provided in
Section 17 of RA 6657 (prior to its amendment by RA 9700). They took into account the nature of the property,
its actual use or the crops planted thereon, the volume of its produce, and its
value according to government assessors. As the CA correctly held, the determination of
just compensation is a judicial function; hence, courts cannot be unduly
restricted in their determination thereof.
To do so would deprive the courts of their judicial prerogatives and
reduce them to the bureaucratic function of inputting data and arriving at the
valuation. While the courts should be
mindful of the different formulae created by the DAR in arriving at just
compensation, they are not strictly bound to adhere thereto if the situations
before them do not warrant it.[42]
Apo
Fruits Corporation v. Court of Appeals[43] thoroughly discusses this issue, to wit:
x x x [T]he basic formula and its alternatives
administratively determined (as it is not found in Republic Act No. 6657, but
merely set forth in DAR AO No. 5, Series of 1998) although referred to and
even applied by the courts in certain instances, does not and cannot strictly
bind the courts. To insist that the
formula must be applied with utmost rigidity whereby the valuation is drawn
following a strict mathematical computation goes beyond the intent and spirit
of the law. The suggested interpretation
is strained and would render the law inutile.
Statutory construction should not kill but give life to the law. As we have established in earlier jurisprudence,
the valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial function
which is vested in the regional trial court acting as a SAC, and not in
administrative agencies. The SAC, therefore, must still be able to reasonably
exercise its judicial discretion in the evaluation of the factors for just
compensation, which cannot be arbitrarily restricted by a formula dictated by
the DAR, an administrative agency. Surely, DAR AO No. 5 did not intend to
straightjacket the hands of the court in the computation of the land
valuation. While it provides a formula,
it could not have been its intention to shackle the courts into applying the
formula in every instance. The court shall apply the formula after an
evaluation of the three factors, or it may proceed to make its own computation
based on the extended list in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, which
includes other factors[.] x x x[44]
As a
final note, it has not escaped the Courts notice that the DAR and the Land
Bank appear nonchalant in depriving landowners of their properties. They seem to ignore the requirements of law
such as notice, valuation, and deposit of initial valuation before taking these
properties, and yet they ask for a strict compliance with the law when it comes
to compensating the landowners. This inequitable situation appears in
innumerable cases and this Court feels duty-bound to remind the DAR and the Land
Bank to give as much regard for the law when taking property as they do when
they are ordered to pay for them. The
rights of landowners cannot be lightly set aside and disregarded for the attainment
of the lofty ideals of agrarian reform.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed June 28, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 86582 is
AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice Acting
Chairperson |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
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 Courts Division.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296,
The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
* Per raffle dated June 25, 2012.
** Per
Special Order No. 1226 dated May 30, 2012.
***
Per raffle dated June 25, 2012.
****
Per Special Order No. 1227 dated May 30,
2012.
[1] Paris v. Alfeche, 416 Phil. 473, 488
(2001).
[2] Rollo, pp. 25-55.
[3]
[4] CA
Decision, pp. 10-11; id. at 65-66.
[5]
[6] There
were several annotations appearing on Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
1773, which is Puyats title to the subject property. There are ten (10) emancipation patents
issued to various farmer-beneficiaries on December 8, 1989; ten (10)
emancipation patents issued on December 11, 1989; and one (1) emancipation
patent issued on December 20, 1989. (
[7] Claims
Processing Form, id. at 124.
[8]
[9]
[10] RTC
Decision, pp. 2-3; id. at 131-132.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Complaint,
pp. 2-3; id. at 108-109.
[15] RTC
Decision, p. 6; id. at 135.
[16] Claims
Processing Form, id. at 125.
[17]
[18] Land
Banks Formal Offer of Exhibits; CA rollo,
p. 81.
[19] RTC
Decision, p. 9; rollo, p. 138; penned
by Presiding Judge Lydia Bauto Hipolito.
[20] RTC
Order, p. 1; id. at 139.
[21]
[22] Petitioners
Memorandum to the CA, pp. 24-25; id. at 169-170.
[23] CA
Decision, p. 4; id. at 10.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] Land Bank of the
[28] Supra.
[29]
[30]
[31] Petitioners
Memorandum, pp. 26-29; rollo, pp. 238-241.
[32] Apo
Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the
[33] Respondents
Memorandum, p. 9; rollo, p. 265.
[34] Land
Bank filed its Memorandum on September 17, 2007 (id. at 213), whereas
respondents filed their Memorandum on October 15, 2007 (id. at 257).
[35] SECTION
34. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall
take effect on July 1, 2009 and it shall be published in at least two (2)
newspapers of general circulation. (Republic
Act No. 9700)
[36] Republic Act No. 9700 (Emphasis
supplied).
[37] Republic Act No. 9700.
[38] Rollo, pp. 282-291.
[39] Respondents
Comments, pp. 6-7; id. at 303-304.
[40] SECTION
31. Implementing Rules and Regulations.
The PARC and the DAR shall provide the necessary implementing rules and
regulations within thirty (30) days upon the approval of this Act. Such rules and regulations shall take effect
on July 1, 2009 and it shall be published in at least two (2) newspapers of
general circulation. (Republic Act No. 9700)
[41] Claims
Processing Form, rollo, p. 124.
[42] Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Chico, supra note
27 at 243; Apo Fruits Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164195, December 19, 2007, 541 SCRA 117,
131-132.
[43] Apo Fruits Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, supra.
[44]