|
Republic of the SECOND
DIVISION
|
||
|
LAND BANK
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, - versus - HON. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN, in his
capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro, JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, in her capacity as Assignee of Federico
Suntay, NENITA SUNTAY TAEDO and EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 182572 Present: CARPIO, J.,Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: June 18, 2012 |
|
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
decision
SERENO, J.:
In the present case, petitioner does not question the jurisdiction of
Branch 46, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Fourth Judicial Region,
Occidental Mindoro to order the transfer of custody to the clerk of court of the
deposit representing the just compensation provisionally determined by the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). Rather, petitioner merely
questions the RTCs Order to physically turn over the deposit.
The present case is a sequel to G.R. No. 170220 promulgated on 20
November 2006.[1] We
adopt the findings of facts as follows:[2]
Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the
assignee of Federico C. Suntay over certain parcels of agricultural land
located at Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, with an area of 3,682.0285
hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-31 (T-1326) of
the Registry of Deeds of Occidental Mindoro. In 1972, a portion of the said
property with an area of 311.7682 hectares, was placed under the land reform
program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (1972) and Executive Order No.
228 (1987). The land was thereafter subdivided and distributed to farmer
beneficiaries. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the LBP fixed the
value of the land at ₱5,056,833.54 which amount was deposited in cash and
bonds in favor of Lubrica.
On the other hand, petitioners Nenita
Suntay-Taedo and Emilio A.M. Suntay III inherited from Federico Suntay a
parcel of agricultural land located at Balansay, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro
covered by TCT No. T-128 of the Register of Deeds of Occidental Mindoro,
consisting of two lots, namely, Lot 1 with an area of 45.0760 hectares and Lot
2 containing an area of 165.1571 hectares or a total of 210.2331 hectares. Lot
2 was placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27 but only 128.7161 hectares was
considered by LBP and valued the same at ₱1,512,575.05.
Petitioners rejected the valuation of their
properties, hence the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(PARAD) conducted summary administrative proceedings for determination of just
compensation. On January 29, 2003, the PARAD fixed the preliminary just
compensation at ₱51,800,286.43 for the 311.7682 hectares (TCT No. T-31)
and ₱21,608,215.28 for the 128.7161 hectares (TCT No. T-128).
Not satisfied with the valuation, LBP filed
on February 17, 2003, two separate petitions for judicial determination of just
compensation before the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro,
acting as a Special Agrarian Court, docketed as Agrarian Case No. R-1339 for
TCT No. T-31 and Agrarian Case No. R-1340 for TCT No. T-128, and raffled to
Branch 46 thereof.
Petitioners filed separate Motions to
Deposit the Preliminary Valuation Under Section 16(e) of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 6657 (1988) and Ad Cautelam
Answer praying among others that LBP deposit the preliminary compensation
determined by the PARAD.
On March 31, 2003, the trial court issued
an Order granting petitioners motion x x x.
x x x x
x x x
x x.
On May 26, 2004, the Court of Appeals
rendered a Decision in favor of the petitioners xxx.
x x x x
x x x
x x
The Court of Appeals held that the trial
court correctly ordered LBP to deposit the amounts provisionally determined by
the PARAD as there is no law which prohibits LBP to make a deposit pending the
fixing of the final amount of just compensation. It also noted that there is no
reason for LBP to further delay the deposit considering that the DAR already
took possession of the properties and distributed the same to
farmer-beneficiaries as early as 1972.
We
granted the Petition stating as follows:[3]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Amended Decision
dated October 27, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77530 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated May 26, 2004 of the Court of Appeals
affirming (a) the March 31, 2003 Order of the Special Agrarian Court ordering
the respondent Land Bank of the Philippines to deposit the just compensation
provisionally determined by the PARAD; (b) the May 26, 2003 Resolution denying
respondents Motion for Reconsideration; and (c) the May 27, 2003 Order
directing Teresita V. Tengco, respondents Land Compensation Department Manager
to comply with the March 31, 2003 Order, is REINSTATED. The Regional Trial
Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 46, acting as Special Agrarian
Court is ORDERED to proceed with dispatch in the trial of Agrarian Case Nos.
R-1339 and R-1340, and to compute the final valuation of the subject properties
based on the aforementioned formula.
Thereafter,
petitioner deposited the balance of the amount of ₱73.4 million
representing the PARAD valuation and subject of the 31 March 2003 Order to
Deposit.
Apparently, another case, docketed as Sp. Proc. N-705, was pending with
Branch 17 of the RTC of Cavite City. In this case, TCT No. T-31 was alleged to
be part of the estate of Emilio Aguinaldo and Maria Agoncillo. Thus, on 29
April 2005, Branch 17 issued an Order:[4]
Finally, considering that counsel for the
administrator has joined counsel for Delfin Aguinaldo and Heirs of Angel
Aguinaldo in the latters motion, as prayed for, the president of the Landbank of
the Philippines is hereby directed to hold in abeyance any further releases of
the proceeds of the compulsory acquisition by the DAR of that parcel of land
located in Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro covered by T-31 (T-1326) until such
time that the issue is resolved.
In CA-G.R. SP No. 97052, a Petition for annulment of judgment was also filed
with the Court of Appeals (CA) by the surviving heirs of Cristina Aguinaldo
Suntay, the deceased spouse of Federico Suntay. Therein petitioners, Isabel
Cojuangco Suntay and Emilio Cojuangco Suntay, Jr., alleged that the parcels of
land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-31 and T-128
registered in the name of Cristina were among her paraphernal properties that
had been illegally included as part of the estate of Federico C. Suntay and had
been subject of agrarian reform land distribution.
On 5 March 2007, the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 97052, through a Resolution,[5]
issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining private respondents Emilio
A.M. Suntay III and Nenita Taedo from collecting or receiving the land
compensation proceeds of the subject property. It stated as follows:
WHEREFORE, a temporary restraining order is
hereby issued, effective upon service and for a period of sixty (60) days,
unless sooner lifted, ENJOINING
private respondents and their representatives from collecting or receiving the
land compensation proceeds of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title Nos. T-31 (1326) and T-128 registered in the name of Cristina Aguinaldo
Suntay. A bond for the temporary restraining order in the amount of
₱250,000.00 is hereby set pursuant to Section 4(b) of Rule 58 of the
Rules of Court. In lieu of a hearing, both parties are required to file simultaneous
memoranda within ten (10) days from receipt hereof with respect to the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction.
SO
ORDERED.
Petitioner
subsequently filed a Manifestation[6]
dated 16 April 2007 informing Branch 46 of the Decision of this Court in G.R.
No. 170220; of the issuance by the CA of a TRO in CA-G.R. SP No. 97052, as well
as by Branch 17 of the 29 April Order; and of petitioners deposit totalling
₱73.4
million in cash and bonds representing the PARAD valuation and subject of the
31 March 2003 Order to Deposit.
Acting on the Manifestation, Branch 46 issued this Order on 26 April 2007:[7]
In the interest of the expeditious
resolution of the above-entitled cases, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed
to take possession of the cash deposits and original Agrarian Reform bonds as
stated in paragraph 2, page 3 of the Manifestation of the Petitioner; and the petitioner
Land Bank of the Philippines is hereby ordered to turn over the said cash
deposits and bonds to the Clerk of Court within five (5) days from receipt
hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Thereafter,
on 21 May 2007, the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 97052 issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction,
effective upon service until sooner lifted.[8]
Subsequently, on 14 August 2007, the CA clarified its 21 May 2007 Resolution to
include the land compensation proceeds of the property covered by TCT No. T-31
in the coverage of the preliminary injunction, to wit:[9]
Conditioned on petitioners filing of a
bond in the sum of ₱2,000,000.00, a writ of preliminary injunction is
hereby issued, effective upon service and until sooner lifted, ENJOINING private respondents and their
representatives from collecting or receiving the land compensation proceeds of
the property covered by Tran[s]fer Certificate of Title No. T-128 registered in
the name of Crist[i]na Aguinaldo Suntay.
Consequently,
petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[10]
alleging that the 26 April 2007 Order would be a violation of the TRO issued by
the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 97052 and the 29 April 2005 Order issued
by Branch 17; that the Order was inconsistent with this Courts Decision in
G.R. No. 170220; that there was still a pending ownership issue in the intestate
proceedings; and that Branch 46 had no jurisdiction to award the proceeds of
the subject properties pending resolution of this issue; and, finally, that
there was no need to physically turn over the deposit to the clerk of court,
since it was made in the name of the Clerk of Court anyway.
On 26 September 2007, Branch 46 denied the Motion, stating as follows:[11]
The deposit is in the name of the Clerk of
Court, and is therefore meant to be in custodia
legis. The Court sees no point in placing the deposit in the name of the
Clerk of Court if it is actually beyond his power and control since it is kept
in the vault of the LBP in the National Capital Region, outside the territorial
jurisdiction and judicial region of this Court.
The LBP is not an officer of the Court, nor
is it a disinterested person. On the contrary, it is very much an interested
party, being a party litigant. It is the very party ordered to make the
deposit. By making the deposit with itself[,] it has merged in its person the
adverse personalities of the depositor and the depositary, a situation that
should not be allowed to continue.
The LBP argues that custody by the Clerk of
Court is a violation of the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97052, and the Order dated April 29, 2005 issued by
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Cavite City. This Court cannot see the logic in LBPs argument. The mere transfer of
the deposit from the Clerk of Court to an interested party may be a violation,
but mere transfer from the LBP to the Clerk of Court for purposes of custodia legis is perfectly legal,
logical and proper.
The LBP does not claim to be a party in the
cases that it is citing. The parties therein have their own counsel and have no
need of the LBP to defend them. More importantly, this Court is not directing
the payment to any interested party. It is merely directing that the deposit,
which is nominally with the Clerk of Court, be placed in his actual, physical
custody, or custodia legis.
The Supreme Court held in Camara v.
Pagayatan, G.R. No. 176563, April 2, 2007:
x x x. That the cash deposit was made
under its account in trust for, and the bond made payable to respondents
judges Clerk of Court is not a contumacious disregard of the 4 March 2005
Order not only because that Order is silent in whose name the deposit should be
made but also because the Branch Clerk of Court is under respondent Judges
control. If LBPs supposed transgression is in not placing the cash deposit
under the account
of, and the bond may payable to, Lubrica, respondent judge could have readily
remedied the problem by directing LBP to turn over the managers check and LBP
bond to the Branch Clerk of Court x x x (Resolution dated April 2, 2007,
Camara v. Pagayatan, G.R. No. 176563).
x x x x x x x x x
The
reason this Court did not order the release of Camara from detention was the
perceived refusal of LBP to relinquish possession of the deposit to the Clerk
of Court. The Supreme Court corrected this Court. It said that the Clerk of
Court in whose name the deposit has been made is under the control of the
Court, and the Court can always order the LBP to turn over the deposit to the
Clerk of Court. That is
precisely what this Court did in its order dated April 26, 2007. It ordered the LBP to turn over the deposit
to the Clerk of Court. In doing so, the Court took its cue from Camara v.
Pagayatan, G.R. No. 176563, April 2, 2007. (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioner thereafter
filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 101506. It alleged that Presiding Judge Ernesto P. Pagayatan
of Branch 46 committed grave abuse of discretion when he issued the 26 April
2007 and 26 September 2007 Orders directing the physical turnover of the
deposits and reiterating the grounds it had earlier cited in its Motion for
Reconsideration.
On 31 January
2008, the CA dismissed the Petition.[12]
It held that the assailed Orders were issued after the finality of the Decision
in G. R. No. 170220. It also ruled that respondent judge had fully explained
the basis of his reliance on this Courts ruling in G.R. No. 176563, as quoted
above, where we said that the trial court may direct petitioner to turn over
the Managers Check and bond to the branch clerk of court. Moreover,
petitioners perceived violation of the injunctive Writ issued by the CA or the
Order issued by Branch 17 was supposedly without factual basis. The CA opined that
the pendency of a suit involving ownership of the expropriated lands provides
even greater justification for the court to take
possession of the disputed funds representing partial payment of the just
compensation due the landowners pursuant to agrarian reform laws. Finally, it
held that it is only when property is lawfully taken by virtue of legal process
that it becomes in custodia legis. The
CA likewise denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration through the assailed
Resolution dated 17 April 2008.[13]
Hence, this
Petition.
We have repeatedly
said that grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other
words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as
to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the
duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[14]
The CA has
correctly held that petitioner failed to show any basis for the latters
allegations. It cannot be said that respondent judge acted in an arbitrary or
despotic manner, as he clearly based the assailed Orders on this Courts
Decision in Camara v. Pagayatan, G.R.
No. 176563. In that case, we
recognized the trial courts jurisdiction in ordering the deposits to be put
under custodia legis; that is, by
turning over the deposits to the Clerk of Court.
Moreover, we
cannot subscribe to petitioners assertions when it does not even question the
Order of respondent judge for it to place the deposits under custodia legis, but only on the
condition that these deposits could not be physically turned over to the clerk
of court. For property to be in custodia
legis, it must have been lawfully seized and taken by legal process and
authority, and placed in the possession of a public officer such as a sheriff,
or of an officer of the court empowered to hold it such as a receiver.[15]
Therefore, it was only a natural consequence for respondent judge to order the
physical turnover of the deposits, which had already been placed under the name
of the Clerk of Court in partial compliance with the 26 April 2007 Order.
Petitioners
fear that the deposits would be released to the litigants is premature and
unfounded. No order of release was ever made by respondent judge; thus, no
violation of the outstanding writ of preliminary injunction has been committed.
Neither can we
subscribe to petitioners theory that the Order for the physical turnover was
violative of our Decision in Lubrica v.
Land Bank of the Philippines (G.R. No. 170220), as that case did not even
touch on the ownership dispute, which was not raised by the parties. Indeed, in
Lubrica, we ordered petitioner to
deposit the provisionally determined land compensation to its office in Manila.
In that case, however, the issue was simply whether the computation for just
compensation was correct. The order to deposit the compensation to petitioners
Manila office was intended to facilitate the immediate release of the funds to
the landowner. Considering the circumstances that arose after our ruling in Lubrica, respondent Judge Pagayatan
issued the Order placing the deposit in custodia
legis to prevent any wrongful release thereof.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision
dated 31 January 2008 and Resolution dated 17 April 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No.
101506 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chairperson
ARTURO D.
BRION JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
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 Courts Division.
Senior Associate Justice
(Per
Section 12, R.A. 296,
The Judiciary Act of
1948, as amended)
[1] Lubrica v. Land Bank of the
Philippines, 20 November 2006, 507 SCRA 415.
[2] Id. at 416-420.
[3] Id. at 425.
[4] Rollo, pp. 193-194.
[5] Id. at 190-192.
[6] Id. at 177-182.
[7] Id. at 285.
[8] Id. at 247-255. Penned
by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices
Magdangal M. de Leon and Ricardo R. Rosario concurring.
[9] Rollo, p. 255.
[10] Id. at 148-162.
[11] Rollo, pp. 145-147.
[12] Penned by Associate
Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court), with Associate
Justices Noel G. Tijam and Sesinando E. Villon concurring; rollo, pp. 10-24.
[13] Rollo, p. 80.
[14] Cuison v. Court of Appeals, 351 Phil. 1089, 1102 (1998).
[15] Castillo v. Buencillo, 407 Phil. 143 (2001).