No. It is a complete statute in itself. It does not make any reference to the Tariff Law. Itdoes not permit the importation of articles, whose importation is prohibited by the Tariff Law. It is not an amendment but merely supplemental to Tariff Law.
G.R. No. 118712 | October 6, 1995 | LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO L. YAP, HEIRS OF EMILIANO F. SANTIAGO,AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
The nature of the case is the consolidation of two separate petitions for review filed byDepartment of Agrarian Reform and Land Bank of the Philippines, assailing the Court of Appeal’s decision, which granted private respondents' petition for
Pedro Yap, Heirs of Emiliano Santiago, Agricultural Management and DevelopmentCorporation or AMADCOR (private respondents)
are landowners whose landholdings wereacquired by the DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657). Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DARand the Landbank with respect to the valuation and payment of compensation for their land,private respondents filed with the Supreme Court a petition questioning the validity of DARAdministrative Order No. 6 (1992)
and No. 9 (1990),
and sought to compel the DAR toexpedite the pending summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the justcompensation of their properties, and the Landbank to deposit in cash and bonds theamounts respectively "earmarked", "reserved" and "deposited in trust accounts" for privaterespondents, and to allow them to withdraw the same. The Supreme Court referred thepetition to CA for proper determination and disposition. The CA found the following facts undisputed:Respondents argued that Admin. Order No. 9 (1990) was issued in grave abuse of discretionamounting excess in jurisdiction because it permits the opening of trust accounts by theLandbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR,the compensation for the land before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided underSection 16(e) of RA 6657. DAR and the Landbank merely "earmarked", "deposited in trust" or"reserved" the compensation in their names as landowners despite the clear mandate thatbefore taking possession of the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or inbonds.On the other hand, petitioner DAR contended that Admin Order No. 9 is a valid exercise of itsrule-making power pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6657.
The issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit" by the Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e) of RA 6657.Landbank averred that the issuance of the Certificates of Deposits is in consonance withCircular Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 of the Land Registration Authority where the words"reserved/deposited" were also used.
1. WON CA erred in declaring as null and void DAR Admin Order No. 9 (1990) insofar as itprovides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposit in cash or in bonds2. WON CA erred in holding that private respondents are entitled as a matter of right to theimmediate and provisional release of the amounts deposited in trust pending the finalresolution of the cases it has filed for just compensation.