LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD and HEIRS OF VICENTE ADAZA, HEIRS OF ROMEO ADAZA, and HEIRS OF CESAR ADAZA, represen ed !" RUSSEL ADAZA, Respondents. G#R# N$# %&'()*, Jan+ar" (,, (-%Facts: Private respondents, namely, the heirs of Vicente, Romeo, and Cesar, all surnamed Adaza, represented by Russel Adaza (Adazas, collectively), were owners of a tract of land with an area of !" hectares, more or less, situated in Pata#an, $anu%an, &amboan#a del 'orte. (f the total, the )epartment of A#rarian Reform ()AR) identified a *+,.-."*/hectare portion as suitable for compulsory ac0uisition under the comprehensive a#rarian reform pro#ram (CARP) pursuant to the Comprehensive A#rarian Reform 1aw of 2",, or Republic Act 'o. (RA) 33!+, otherwise %nown as the CARP 1aw. 4n Au#ust 2""2, the )AR sent out a notice of covera#e. 5he claim folder profile was then endorsed to petitioner 1and 6an% of the Philippines (16P) to determine the value of the land. 5he 16P assi#ned the covered *+,.-."*/hectare area an a##re#ate value of PhP +,3,3!-.-3. 5he )AR, in turn, offered the same amount to the Adazas as 7ust compensation for their landholdin#, but the latter considered the valuation for their developed property unreasonably low and re7ected the offer. 5his prompted )AR to order the 16P to deposit the amount aforestated to the account of the Adazas, who then secured the release of that amount without pre7udice to their ri#ht to a final determination of 7ust compensation. 5he )AR then subdivided the property into smaller lots and, in )ecember 2""*, distributed them to identified beneficiaries. Pursuant to the pertinent provision of the then #overnin# *.. )ARA6 Rules of Procedure in relation to 8ection 23(d) of RA 33!+ in case of contested valuation, the Provincial A#rarian Reform Ad7udicator conducted a summary administrative hearin# to determine 7ust compensation. 4n the course of the hearin# and on its preliminary estimation that the computation was unconscionably low, the PARA), as%ed the 16P to underta%e another landsite inspection and recomputation of the value of the sub7ect landholdin# in accordance with the latest formulae on land valuation. 5he 16P later submitted its compliance report, in which it came out with a new revalued fi#ure and prayed that the PARA) adopt the recomputed value in the amount of PhP ,-*3,2! .,. as 7ust compensation for the Adazas9 CARP/covered property. Issue: :hether or not the )ARA6 can order the release to the landowners, by way of e;ecution pendin# appeal, of the incremental difference of a landban% recomputation upheld in a decision of the dar ad7udicator a 0uo within the purview of section 23, et se0. of the carp law (RA 33!+) and its implementin# rules. Ruling: 5he petition is without merit. 5hree points need to be emphasized at the outset. <irst, the amount of PhP ,-*3,2! .,. the Adazas want to be released pendin# appeal, or pendin# final determination of 7ust compensation, to be precise, was arrived at by 16P.

that in the instant case. in a bid to stall further the Adazas9 claim to the difference of the new and ori#inal valuation amounts.chan#e for the ta%in# .hibited opposition to the valuation. 5he immediate effect in both situations is the same.ercise by )ARA6 of its discretion to allow e. 6y virtue of such affirmatory action. 6ut )AR rubbed it in all the more by withholdin# that which ri#htfully belon#s to private respondents in e. 8ection * of the *.ercisin# the landowners9 ri#ht to appropriate the same. thus= 5he attempt to ma%e a distinction between the deposit of compensation under 8ection 23(e) of RA 33!+ and determination of 7ust compensation under 8ection 2. pendin# final determination of what is 7ust compensation for their land. 5he 16P9s lament about the impropriety of what amounts to the )ARA6 allowin# e.A Court cannot a#ree more. 1est it be overloo%ed./ 00$1d 0e r/20 $3 0e 1and$. ./ 0s and/n2 0a 0e" 0a8e a1read" !een depr/8ed $3 0e p$ssess/$n $3 s+50 pr$per /es /s an $ppress/8e e9er5/se $3 e4/nen d$4a/n. 5his is misery twice bestowed on private respondents. the )AR has. Court of Appeals. 5he 16P. but for the fact that the Provincial Ad7udicator a quo and eventually the )ARA6 affirmed the new property valuation made by the 16P./16P valuation. Athere is no more #round more meritorious than the Adazas9 a#ony of waitin# for a lon# period of time to have their properties properly valued.ners $ appr$pr/a e 0e a4$+n s a1read" dep$s/ ed in their behalf as 5$4pensa /$n for their properties s/4p1" !e5a+se 0e" re6e5 ed 0e DAR7s 8a1+a /$n. )ARA6 Rules of Procedure. 5o the )ARA6. 16P adds. As aptly observed by the )ARA6. would foist the ar#ument that the sum which the CARP 1aw re0uires it to set aside and which the landowner may withdraw is the amount correspondin# to the 16P/)AR valuation. . ?nder Rule @@. there is no way that such amended valuation would #o down as it is the landowners who have e.2! ..ecution pendin# appeal. .ecute an order or decision pendin# appeal upon meritorious #rounds. in effect. the landowner is deprived of the use and possession of his property for which he should be fairly and immediately compensated. 5he irresistible e. T$ .. inclusive of controversies relatin# to compensation of lands under the CARP 1aw.-*3. the )AR has yet to approve the new valuation. 5he len#th of time that the Adazas have been deprived of their property without receivin# their 7ust due on a rather simple issue of 7ust compensation will suffice to 7ustify the e. )ARA6 bein# the ad7udicatin# arm of )AR.4n Land Bank of the Philippines v. as the determination of 7ust compensation is essentially a 7udicial function..propriation of private respondents9 properties was painful enou#h. the )ARA6 may #rant a motion to e. Court of Appeals. 5o paraphrase what we said in Apo Fruits Corporation v. for purposes of e. allowin# the ta%in# of the landowners9 property and leavin# them empty/handed while #overnment withholds compensation are undoubtedly oppressive. >ence. the Court stressed the need to allow the landowners to withdraw immediately the amount deposited in their behalf. Court find it unnecessary to distin#uish between provisional compensation under 8ection 23(e) and final compensation under 8ection 2. the )ARA6 has primary 7urisdiction to ad7udicate all a#rarian disputes. which the Court must rectify. 5he Court may accord co#ency to 16P9s ar#ument. approved the PhP . however. and n$ .ecution pendin# appeal without re0uirin# the Adazas to post a bond does not persuade.. is unacceptable.