Republic
of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, represented by OIC-Secretary JOSE MARI B. PONCE, now by Secretary
NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, Petitioner, -
versus - HEIRS OF ANGEL T. DOMINGO, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 188670
Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO,
and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: March 7, 2012 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court filed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) assailing
the Decision[1] dated June 30, 2009 issued by the Court of
Appeals (CA) in the consolidated cases of CA-G.R. SP Nos. 83765 and
84791 entitled Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Heirs of Angel T. Domingo and Department of Agrarian Reform v. Heirs of Angel T. Domingo,
respectively.
The late Angel T. Domingo (Domingo) is the registered owner of a
70.3420-hectare rice land situated at Macapabellag, Guimba, Nueva Ecija,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-97157.
On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27[2]
(P.D. No. 27) was issued, pursuant to which actual tenant farmers of private
agricultural lands devoted to rice and corn were deemed as full owners of the
land they till. The land transfer program under P.D. No. 27 was subsequently
implemented by Executive Order No. 228[3]
(E.O. No. 228) which was issued on July 17, 1987.
Consequently, out of the 70.3420 hectares of the said rice land,
34.9128 hectares (subject land) were taken by the government under its land
transfer program and awarded the same to tenant farmers. Several Emancipation
Patents were then issued to qualified tenant farmers on various dates, to wit:
|
Date Issued |
Number Emancipation Patents Issued |
Total Area Covered |
|
April 29, 1988 |
11 |
21.8520 hectares |
|
October 4, 1994 |
3 |
2.9372 hectares |
|
July 29, 1997 |
3 |
7.3997 hectares |
|
February 21, 2001 |
1 |
2.7245 hectares |
On April 26, 2000, Domingo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Guimba, Nueva Ecija a complaint for determination and payment of just
compensation against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and DAR. Apparently,
the LBP and DAR initially pegged the amount of just compensation for the
subject land at P127,298.61.
Domingo opposed the said valuation and claimed that the just
compensation for the subject land should be computed using the parameters set
forth under Republic Act No. 6657[4]
(R.A. No. 6657). Thus, Domingo claimed that the just compensation for the
subject land should not be less than P5,236,920.00 for the whole 34.9128
hectares or P150,000.00 per hectare. He asserted that the subject land
is a fully irrigated rice land capable of one-half harvest in two years,
yielding an average harvest of 50 cavans per
hectare. He likewise claimed that he has yet to receive the just compensation
for the subject land.
The LBP and DAR disputed Domingos valuation and claimed that the
determination of just compensation should be governed by the provisions of P.D.
No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228, i.e. Land Value = Average Gross Production (AGP) x 2.5 x P35.00,[5]
the latter amount representing the Government Support Price (GSP) on October
21, 1972. Thus, using this formula, they claimed that the just compensation for
the subject land should be P459,091.60 inclusive of the benefit of DAR
Administrative Order No. 13[6]
(A.O. No. 13).
Further, the LBP asserted that it had already paid Domingo the
just compensation for the subject land, the latter having withdrawn the amounts
of P419,438.17 and P39,653.43.
On January 21, 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision which, inter alia, fixed the just compensation
for the subject land at P3,709,999.49. Evidently, the RTC used the
method set forth under P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228 except that it
used the GSP rate at the time of issuance of the various Emancipation Patents. The
RTC computed the just compensation as follows:
a.
For the 21.8520 hectare portion taken in 1988
= 91.42 x 2.5 x 175
= P39,996.25 x
21.8520
= P873,998.05 x
2.397 (Annual compounding rate of 6% p/a for 15 years)
= P2,094,973.32
b.
For the 2.9372 hectare portion taken in 1994
= 91.42 x 2.5 x 300
= P68,565.00 per
hectare x 2.9372
= P201,389.11 x
1.689 (Annual compounding rate of 6% pa)
= P340,146.20
c.
For the 7.3997 hectare portion taken in 1997
= 91.42 x 2[.]5 x
400
= 91.420 (sic) per
hectare x 7.3997
= 676,480.74 x 1.419
(Annual compounding rate of 6% pa for 6 years)
= P959,926.17
d.
For the 2.7245 hectare portion taken in 2001
= 91.42 x 2.5 x 450
= P102,847.50 per
hectare x 2.72[4]5
= P280,208.01 x
1.124 (Annual compounding rate of 6% for 2 years)
= P314,953.80
or a total of P3,709,999.49 x x x[7]
The LBP and DAR filed their respective motions for reconsideration,
which were partially granted by the RTC in its Order dated March 29, 2004. Accordingly,
the RTC, after deleting the 6% additional increment it imposed, directed the LBP
and DAR to pay Domingo the total amount of P2,032,075.91 as just
compensation for the subject land.
The LBP and DAR then appealed from the foregoing disposition of
the RTC. On June 30, 2009, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision, the
decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the
RTC is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Conformably, the RTC of Guimba,
Nueva Ecija, Branch 33, acting as a
SO
ORDERED.[8]
In remanding the case to the RTC for the computation of the just
compensation due on the subject land, the CA ruled that:
In fine, the RTC did not commit
an error when it applied the provisions of R.A. 6657 and that the date of
taking of Domingos rice land for purposes of computing just compensation
should be reckoned from the issuance dates of emancipation patents. However,
the just compensation for the subject land in the present case should be
computed in accordance with Lubrica vs.
Land Bank x x x. In said case, it was held that:
Section 18 of R.A. No. 6657
mandates that the LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may be
agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP or as may be finally
determined by the court as the just compensation for the land. 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 farmworkers 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.
In the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada x
x x, the above provision was converted into a formula by the DAR through
Administrative Order No. 05, S. 1998, to wit:
Land Value (
Undaunted, the DAR instituted the
instant petition for review on certiorari
before this Court alleging that the CA erred when it affirmed the ruling of the
RTC that, for purposes of determining the just compensation for lands covered
by P.D. No. 27, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 must be applied.
In their comment,[10]
the respondents Heirs of Angel T. Domingo asserted that the instant petition
ought to be denied, asserting that this Court, in a long line of cases, had
established that the method of computing for just compensation set forth under
R.A. No. 6657 applies to lands taken by the government under P.D. No. 27 in
relation to E.O. No. 228.
Basically,
this Court is called upon to determine this issue: whether the method set forth
under R.A. No. 6657 in the computation of just compensation may be applied to
private agricultural lands taken by the government under the auspices of P.D. No.
27 in relation to E.O. No. 228.
We rule in the affirmative.
The
issue presented by the instant case is not novel. In Land Bank of the
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
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 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.[12]
(Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
Likewise,
in the cognate case of Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Heirs of Angel T. Domingo,[13]
this court held that:
LBPs contention that
the property was taken on 21 October 1972, the date of effectivity of PD 27,
thus just compensation should be computed based on the GSP in 1972, is
erroneous. The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing
just compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the
emancipation patents. An emancipation patent constitutes the conclusive
authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of
the grantee. It is from the issuance of an emancipation patent that the grantee
can acquire the vested right of ownership in the landholding, subject to the
payment of just compensation to the landowner.
When RA 6657 was
enacted into law in 1988, the agrarian reform process in the present case was
still incomplete as the amount of just compensation to be paid to Domingo had
yet to be settled. Just compensation should therefore be determined and the
expropriation process concluded under RA 6657.
Guided by this
precept, just compensation for purposes of agrarian reform under PD 27 should
adhere to Section 17 of RA 6657 which states:
Sec. 17. Determination
of Just Compensation. In determining just compensation, the cost of
acquisition of the land, the current value of the 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 farmworkers 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.
x x x
In sum, we affirm the rulings of the trial court and the appellate court
that the provisions of RA 6657 apply to the present case and that the date of
taking of Domingos riceland for purposes of computing just compensation should
be reckoned from the issuance dates of emancipation patents.[14]
x x x (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
Indeed,
it would be the height of inequity if we are to compute the just compensation
for the subject land using the values at the time when P.D. No. 27 was issued. Admittedly,
the expropriation of the subject land was initiated under P.D. No. 27.
Nevertheless, with the passage of R.A. No. 6657, the CA aptly ruled that the
method set forth thereunder should be adopted in computing just compensation
for the subject land.
In
sum, in determining just compensation, the cost of the 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 farmworkers 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.[15]
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
disquisitions, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June
30, 2009 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 83765 and 84791 are AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
JOSE Associate Justice |
MARIA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts 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 Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok, concurring; rollo, pp. 25-37.
[2] Decreeing the Emancipation of
Tenants From the Bondage of the Soil, Transferring to Them the Ownership of the
Land They Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanism Therefor.
[3] Declaring
[4] An Act Instituting a
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to Promote Social Justice and
Industrialization, Providing the Mechanism for its Implementation and for Other
Purposes.
[5] Section 2 of E.O. No. 228 reads:
Section 2. Henceforth, the valuation of
rice and corn lands covered by P.D. No. 27 shall be based on the average gross
production determined by the Barangay Committee on Land Production in
accordance with Department Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973 and
related issuances and regulations of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The average gross production shall be
multiplied by two and a half (2.5),
the product of which shall be multiplied by Thirty-Five Pesos (P35),
the government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay
on October 21, 1972, or
Thirty-One Pesos (P31),
the government support price for one cavan
of 50 kilos of corn on October 21, 1972, and the amount arrived at shall
be the value of the rice and corn land, as the case may be, for the purpose of
determining its cost to the farmer and compensation to the landowner.
[6] Rules and Regulations Governing
Grant of Increment of Six Percent (6%) Yearly Interest Compounded Annually on
Lands Covered by P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228.
[7] Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] 497
Phil. 738 (2005).
[12]
[13] G.R.
No. 168533, February 4, 2008, 543 SCRA 627.
[14]
[15] Section
17, R.A. No. 6657.