ProvinceofCamSurvCA,222SCRA137,GR103125

(1993)
Facts: On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province
of Camarines Sur passed a Resolution authorizing the Provincial Governor to
purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial Capitol site, in
order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops
and a housing project for provincial government employees
Pursuant to the Resolution, the Province of Camarines Sur, through its Governor,
filed two separate cases for expropriation against Ernesto N. San Joaquin and
Efren N. San Joaquin, at the Regional Trial Court, Pili, Camarines Sur.
The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy
of the price offered for their property. In an order, the trial court denied the motion
to dismiss and authorized the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of
the property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court the amount provisionally
fixed by the trial court to answer for damages that private respondents may suffer
in the event that the expropriation cases do not prosper.
The San Joaquins filed a motion for relief from the order, authorizing the Province
of Camarines Sur to take possession of their property and a motion to admit an
amended motion to dismiss. Both motions were denied in the order dated
February 26, 1990.
In their petition before the Court of Appeals, the San Joaquins asked: (a) that
Resolution of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan be declared null and void; (b) that
the complaints for expropriation be dismissed; and (c) that the order denying the
motion to dismiss and allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take
possession of the property subject of the expropriation and the order dated
February 26, 1990, denying the motion to admit the amended motion to dismiss,
be set aside. They also asked that an order be issued to restrain the trial court
from enforcing the writ of possession, and thereafter to issue a writ of injunction.
Asked by the Court of Appeals to give his Comment to the petition, the Solicitor
General stated that under Section 9 of the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg.
337), there was no need for the approval by the Office of the President of the
exercise by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the right of eminent domain.
However, the Solicitor General expressed the view that the Province of
Camarines Sur must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian
Reform of the plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing
project.
The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court, allowing the Province
of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondents' lands and the order
denying the admission of the amended motion to dismiss. It also ordered the trial
court to suspend the expropriation proceedings until after the Province of

Camarines Sur shall have submitted the requisite approval of the Department of
Agrarian Reform to convert the classification of the property of the private
respondents from agricultural to non-agricultural land.
Issue: WON the Province of Cam Sur must first secure the approval of the
Department of Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the lands of the San
Joaquins.
HELD: To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government
units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of
roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc., without first applying for conversion of the
use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these
projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then
be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is
for a public purpose or public use.
Ratio: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the questioned decision of
the Court of Appeals is set aside insofar as it (a) nullifies the trial court's order
allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of private
respondents' property; (b) orders the trial court to suspend the expropriation
proceedings; and (c) requires the Province of Camarines Sur to obtain the
approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert or reclassify private
respondents' property from agricultural to non-agricultural use.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED insofar as it sets aside the
order of the trial court, denying the amended motion to dismiss of the private
respondents.
SO ORDERED.

Roxas and Company, Inc. vs. DAMBA-NSFW and DAR

FACTS:
Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner
of three haciendas. On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the
Philippines formally convened and took over legislative power
from the President. This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657,
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act
was signed by the President on June 10, 1988 and took effect on
June 15, 1988. Before the laws effectivity, on May 6, 1988,
[Roxas & Co.] filed with respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell
[VOS] Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No.
229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed under
compulsory acquisition by DAR in accordance with the CARL.
On August 6, 1992 [Roxas & Co.], through its President, sent
a letter to theSecretary of DAR withdrawing its VOS of
Hacienda Caylaway.The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu,
Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of
Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural
As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was
applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to
other uses. The petitions nub on the interpretation of Presidential
Proclamation (PP) 1520 reads: DECLARING THE MUNICIPALITIES
OF MARAGONDON AND TERNATE IN CAVITE PROVINCE AND THE
MUNICIPALITY OF NASUGBU IN BATANGAS AS A TOURISTZONE,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Essentially, Roxas & Co. filed its
application for conversion of its three haciendas from agricultural
to non-agricultural on the assumption that the issuance of PP
1520 which declared Nasugbu, Batangas as a tourism zone,
reclassified them to non-agricultural uses. Its pending application
notwithstanding, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to the
farmer-beneficiaries in the three haciendas including CLOA No.
6654 which was issued on October 15, 1993 covering 513.983
hectares, the subject of G.R. No. 167505. Roxas & Co. filed with
the DAR an application for exemption from the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of 1988 on the
basis of PP 1520 and of DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6,
Series of 1994

3 which states that all lands already classified as commercial,

industrial, or residential before the effectivity of CARP no
longer need conversion clearance from the DAR.
ISSUES:
Whether PP 1520 reclassified in 1975 all lands in the
Maragondon-Ternate-Nasugbu tourism zone to non-agricultural
useto exempt Roxas & Co.s three haciendas in Nasugbu from
CARP coverage;
RULING:
PP 1520 DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONVERT THE
AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE THREE MUNICIPALITIES
INCLUDINGNASUGBU TO NON-AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
Roxas & Co. contends that PP 1520 declared the three
municipalities as each constituting a tourism zone, reclassified all
landstherein to tourism and, therefore, converted their use
to non-agricultural purposes.The perambulatory clauses of PP
1520 identified only "certain areas in the sector comprising the
[three Municipalities that] havepotential tourism value" and
mandated the conduct of "necessary studies" and the
segregation of "specific geographic areas" toachieve its purpose.
Which is why the PP directed the Philippine Tourism Authority
(PTA) to identify what those potential tourismareas are. If all the
lands in those tourism zones were to be wholly converted to nonagricultural use, there would have been noneed for the PP to
direct the PTA to identify what those "specific geographic areas"
are.In the above-cited case of Roxas & Co. v. CA, 9 the Court
made it clear that the "power to determine whether Haciendas
Palico,Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural, hence, exempt
from the coverage of the [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law]
lies withthe [Department of Agrarian Reform], not with this
Court." The DAR, an administrative body of special competence,
denied, byOrder, the application for CARP exemption of Roxas &
Co., it finding that PP 1520 did not automatically reclassify all the
lands in theaffected municipalities from their original uses. It
appears that the PTA had not yet, at that time, identified the
"specific geographic areas" for tourism development and had
no pending tourism development projects in the areas. Further,
report from the Center for Land Use Policy Planning
and Implementation (CLUPPI) indicated that the areas were
planted with sugar cane and other crops.11Relatedly, the DAR, by
Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 2004,12came up with

clarificatory guidelines and therein decreed thatB. Proclamations

declaring general areas such as whole provinces, municipalities,
barangays, islands or peninsulas astourist zones that merely:(1)
recognize certain still unidentified areas within the covered
provinces, municipalities, barangays, islands, or peninsulasto be
with potential tourism value and charge the Philippine Tourism
Authority with the task to identify/delineate specificgeographic
areas within the zone with potential tourism value and
to coordinate said areas development; or (2) recognize the
potential value of identified spots located within the general area
declared as tourist zone (i.e. x x x x)and direct the
Philippine Tourism Authority to coordinate said areas
development;could not be regarded as effecting an automatic
reclassification of the entirety of the land area declared as tourist
zone. This is sobecause "reclassification of lands" denotes their
allocation into some specific use and "providing for the manner of
their utilizationand disposition (Sec. 20, Local Government Code)
or the "act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized
for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, or
commercial, as embodied in the land use plan." A proclamation
that merelyrecognizes the potential tourism value of certain
areas within the general area declared as tourist zone clearly
does not allocate,reserve, or intend the entirety of the land area
of the zone for non-agricultural purposes. Neither does said
proclamation direct thatotherwise CARPable lands within the zone
shall already be used for purposes other than
agricultural.Moreover, to view these kinds of proclamation as a
reclassification for non-agricultural purposes of entire provinces,
municipalities,barangays, islands, or peninsulas would
be unreasonable as it amounts to an automatic and sweeping
exemption from CARP in thename of tourism development. The
same would also undermine the land use reclassification powers
vested in local governmentunits in conjunction with pertinent
agencies of government.C. There being no reclassification, it is
clear that said proclamations/issuances, assuming [these] took
effect before June 15, 1988,could not supply a basis for
exemption of the entirety of the lands embraced therein from
CARP coverageD. The DARs reading into these general
proclamations of tourism zones deserves utmost consideration,
more especially in thepresent petitions which involve vast tracts
of agricultural land. To reiterate, PP 1520 merely recognized the

"potential tourism value" of certain areas within the general area

declared as tourism zones
. It did not reclassify the areas to non-agricultural use.A mere
reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically
allow a landowner to change its use since there is still that
process of conversion before one is permitted to use it for other
purposes

Just compensation in agrarian cases: what

law applies; how computed.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Vs. MAGIN FERRER, ANTONIO V. FERRER, and
RAMON V. FERRER, represented by their Attorney-in-fact, ATTY. RAFAEL VILLAROSA, GR
No. 172230, Feb. 2, 2011; with companion case - DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
represented by Secretary NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN vs. ANTONIO V. FERRER and
RAMON V. FERRER, GR No. 179421, Feb. 2, 2011.
X x x.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that RA 6657, rather than P.D. No. 27/E.O.
No. 228, is the law that should apply in the determination of just compensation for the subject
agricultural land.
Positions of the Parties
The LBP and the DAR basically argue that P.D. No. 27, as reaffirmed by E.O. No. 228, should be
applied in determining the just compensation for the subject property. They contend that P.D. No.
27 and E.O. No. 228 prescribe the formula in determining the just compensation of rice and corn
lands tenanted as of October 21, 1972. As the subject property was tenanted and devoted to rice
production in 1972, the just value should be fixed at the prevailing rate at that time, when the
emancipation of the tenant-farmers from the bondage of the soil was declared in P.D. No. 27.
As to R.A. No. 6657, both the LBP and the DAR insist that it applies only to ricelands and
cornlands not tenanted as of October 21, 1972. R.A. No. 6657 does not cover ricelands and
cornlands acquired under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228. The governments OLT program on
tenanted privately-owned rice and corn lands pursuant to P.D. No. 27 continues separately and
distinctly from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) acquisition and distribution
program under R.A. No. 6657 because 1) R.A. No. 6657 operates prospectively; and 2) Congress
intended that lands subject to or governed by existing government programs such as the OLT and
homestead under P.D. No. 27 are to be treated distinctly.
With respect to the appointment of commissioners, the LBP and the DAR argue that there was no
legal basis therefor because 1) there were no long accounts or difficult questions of fact that
required the expertise and know-how of the commissioners; and 2) the formula for just
compensation was already provided under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228.
On the other hand, the Ferrers adopted the common ruling of the CA stating that it did not err in
applying the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 in fixing the just compensation for the subject property.
The Courts Ruling
The issue as to which agrarian law between P. D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 and R.A. No. 6657 should
apply in the determination of just compensation has been laid to rest in a number of cases. In the
case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Hon. Eli G. C. Natividad, 497 Phil 738 (2005). it was ruled
that:

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 Paris v. Alfeche.
Section 17 of RA 6657 which is particularly relevant, providing as it does the guideposts for the
determination of just compensation, reads as follows:
Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation.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 farm-workers 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.
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. [Emphases supplied]
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Manuel O Gallego, Jr., G.R. No. 173226, January 20, 2009,
576 SCRA 680, the Court handed down the same ruling. Thus:
The Court has already ruled on the applicability of agrarian laws, namely, P.D. No. 27/E.O. No.
228 in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, in prior cases concerning just compensation.
In Paris v. Alfeche, 416 Phil 473 (2001), the Court held that the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 are
also applicable to the agrarian reform process of lands placed under the coverage of P.D. No.
27/E.O. No. 228, which has not been completed upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657. Citing Land
Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 1248 (1999), the Court in Paris held that
P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 have suppletory effect to R.A. No. 6657, to wit:
We cannot see why Sec. 18 of RA [No.] 6657 should not apply to rice and corn lands under PD
[No.] 27. Section 75 of RA [No.] 6657 clearly states that the provisions of PD [No.] 27 and EO
[No.] 228 shall only have a suppletory effect. Section 7 of the Act also provides
Sec. 7. Priorities.The DAR, in coordination with the PARC shall plan and program the
acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands through a period of (10) years from the
effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired and distributed as follows:
Phase One: Rice and Corn lands under P.D. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all private lands
voluntarily offered by the owners of agrarian reform; x x x and all other lands owned by the
government devoted to or suitable for agriculture, which shall be acquired and distributed
immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be completed within a
period of not more than four (4) years (emphasis supplied).
This eloquently demonstrates that RA [No.] 6657 includes PD [No.] 27 lands among the
properties which the DAR shall acquire and distribute to the landless. And to facilitate the
acquisition and distribution thereof, Secs. 16, 17 and 18 of the Act should be adhered to. In
Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, this Court
applied the provisions (of) RA 6657 to rice and corn lands when it upheld the constitutionality of
the payment of just compensation for PD [No.] 27 lands through the different modes stated in
Sec. 18. [Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Hon. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, 256 Phil. 777 (1989)].
Particularly, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, 497 Phil. 738 (2005), where the agrarian
reform process in said case is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private
respondents has yet to be settled, the Court held therein that just compensation should be

determined and the process concluded under R.A. No. 6657.

The retroactive application of R.A. No. 6657 is not only statutory but is also founded on equitable
considerations. In Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170220, November 20, 2006,
507 SCRA 415, the Court declared that it would be highly inequitable on the part of the
landowners therein to compute just compensation using the values at the time of taking in 1972,
and not at the time of payment, considering that the government and the farmer-beneficiaries
have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof has not yet been transferred in
their names. The same equitable consideration is applicable to the factual milieu of the instant
case. The records show that respondents property had been placed under the agrarian reform
program in 1972 and had already been distributed to the beneficiaries but respondents have yet
to receive just compensation due them. [Emphases supplied]
The above rulings were reiterated in the recent cases of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rizalina
Gustilo Barrido and Heirs of Romeo Barrido, G.R. No. 183688, April 18, 2010, and Land Bank of
the Philippines v. Enrique Livioc, G.R. No. 170685, September 22, 2010.
The CA was, therefore, correct in ruling that the agrarian reform process in this particular case
was still incomplete because the just compensation due to the Ferrers had yet to be settled.
Since R.A. No. 6657 was already in effectivity before the completion of the process, the just
compensation should be determined and the process concluded under this law.
With respect to the appointment of the commissioners, it is an issue not properly brought and
ventilated in the trial courts below and only raised for the first time on appeal. At any rate, the
appointment was proper because the applicable law is R.A. No. 6657.
X x x.

G.R. No. 170220

November 20, 2006

JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, in her capacity as Assignee of FEDERICO C.

SUNTAY, NENITA SUNTAY TAEDO and EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III,
Petitioners, vs.LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee 2 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).
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)4 and Executive Order No. 228 (1987).5 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
P5,056,833.54 which amount was deposited in cash and bonds in favor of
Lubrica.
Nenita Suntay-Taedo and Emilio A.M. Suntay III inherited from Federico
Suntay a parcel of agricultural land 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 P1,512,575.05.
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.
ISSUE: WON the determination of just compensation should be based on the
value of the expropriated properties at the time of payment.
HELD: Yes.
Petitioners were deprived of their properties without payment of just
compensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite before the property can
be taken away from its owners.27 The transfer of possession and ownership of
the land to the government are conditioned upon the receipt by the
landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the
compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the
landowner.
The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and
ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in
cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with
the landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either.
Petitioners were deprived of their properties way back in 1972, yet to date,
they have not yet received just compensation. Thus, it would certainly be
inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided
by P.D. No. 227 and E.O. No. 228 considering the failure to determine just
compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation
should be determined in accordance with R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. No. 227

or E.O. No. 228, is important 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.

(1)
1996]
PHILIPPINES,
VS
..FACTS
PETITIONER
,there
L.
YAP,
HEIRS
OF
EMILIANO
F.
AGRICULTURAL
SANTIAGO,
MANAGEMENT
&
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENTS
once
more
imperative
that
be
applied
aforestated
in
its
principles
resolution.
Separate
filed
Department
by
petitioners
of
Agrarian
Bank
of
(DAR)
the
following
and
Land
the
Appeals.
Private
respondents
whose
landholdings
are
landowners
were
acquired
by
the
transfer
qualified
schemes
beneficiaries
to
under
Reform
Comprehensive
Law.
Agrarian
lapses
of
the
DAR
and
the
valuation
with
and
respect
payment
to
they
DAR
to
sought
expedite
to
compel
the
the
pending
administrative
summary
proceedings
compensation
of
their
properties,
Landbank
to
and
deposit
the
in
cash
bonds
the
amounts
"reserved"
in
trust
accounts"
and
"deposited
for
private
them
respondents,
to
and
to.
withdraw
the
same.
petitions
dismissed
but
and
it
they
was
filed
a
Motion
for
Reconsideration.
of
"trust
accounts"
is
within
the
"deposit.
coverage
of
term
and
foreclosing
unambiguous,
any
doubt
as
to
allow
construction
I.
an
expanded
that
would
accounts"
within
the
coverage
Accordingly,
of
term
we
must
"deposit.
adhere
to
the
welllaw
categorical
speaks
in
language,
clear
and
is
interpretation
no
reason
for
or
application.
The
validity
of
constituting
for
the
benefit
trust
of
the
accounts
rejecting
landowners
payment
premised
to
on
them
the
latter's
is
further
refusal
to
accept
offered
that
the
amount
remains
in
safekeeping
custody
of
and
the
in
LBP
trust
for
for
eventual
As
power,
an
exercise
the
expropriation
police
of
CARP
puts
property
under
the
government,
in
a
situation
where
stacked
the
against
odds
are
his
favor.
already
He
has
no
only
can
negotiate
consolation
for
is
the
that
he
amount
paid
for
of
compensation
the
Unduly
burdening
the
property
resulting
owners
flaws
in
from
the
implementation
II.
ISSUES
of
the
CARP
have
crafted
been
legislation
a
carefully
is
plainly
unfair
and
unacceptable.
III.
HELD
PETITIONER
VS
L.
YAP,
HEIRS
OF
EMILIANO
AGRICULTURAL
RESPONDENTS
once
more
imperative
that
be
applied
in
its
resolution.
Department
of
Agrarian
Bank
of
the
following
the
Appeals.
Private
whose
landholdings
were
qualified
beneficiaries
under
Reform
Law.
lapses
of
the
DAR
and
the
valuation
and
payment
DAR
to
expedite
the
administrative
proceedings
of
their
Landbank
to
deposit
in
cash
in
trust
accounts"
for
them
to
dismissed
and
they
filed
a
of
"trust
accounts"
is
within
"deposit.
foreclosing
any
doubt
as
to
construction
FACTS
that
would
accounts"
within
the
Accordingly,
we
must
categorical
language,
there
interpretation
or
application.
The
validity
of
for
the
benefit
of
the
premised
on
the
latter's
compensation
that
the
the
amount
remains
in
safekeeping
and
in
trust
for
power,
private
the
expropriation
of
CARP
puts
government,
in
a
situation
stacked
against
his
favor.
can
negotiate
for
the
to
paid
for
the
Unduly
burdening
the
resulting
flaws
in
ISSUES
crafted
legislation
is
plainly
[G.R. No. 118712. July 5, 1996]

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER ,

VS .
COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO L. YAP, HEIRS OF EMILIANO F. SANTIAGO,
AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS .
I.
FACTS

In this agrarian dispute, it is once more imperative that the aforestated principles be applied in
its resolution. Separate petitions for review were filed by petitioners Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) and Land Bank of the following the adverse ruling by the Court of Appeals. Private
respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR and subjected to
transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DAR and the Landbank with respect to the valuation
and payment of compensation for their land, they sought to compel the DAR to expedite the
pending summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the just compensation of their
properties, and the Landbank to deposit in cash and bonds the amounts respectively
"earmarked", "reserved" and "deposited in trust accounts" for private respondents, and to allow
them to withdraw the same.
DAR and Land Bank filed for petitions but it was dismissed and they filed a Motion for
Reconsideration.
II.
ISSUES

III.

Whether or not the opening of "trust accounts" is within the coverage of term
"deposit.
HELD

The provision is very clear and unambiguous, foreclosing any doubt as to allow an expanded
construction that would include the opening of "trust accounts" within the coverage of term
"deposit. Accordingly, we must adhere to the well-settled rule that when the law speaks in clear
and categorical language, there is no reason for interpretation or construction, but only for
application. The validity of constituting trust accounts for the benefit of the rejecting landowners
and withholding immediate payment to them is further premised on the latter's refusal to accept
the offered compensation thereby making it necessary that the amount remains in the custody of
the LBP for safekeeping and in trust for eventual payment to the landowners. As an exercise of
police power, the expropriation of private property under the CARP puts the landowner, and not
the government, in a situation where the odds are already stacked against his favor. He has no
recourse but to allow it. His only consolation is that he can negotiate for the amount of
compensation to be paid for the expropriated property. Unduly burdening the property owners
from the resulting flaws in the implementation of the CARP which was supposed to have been a
carefully crafted legislation is plainly unfair and unacceptable.

Estribillo v DAR
Facts:
Private respondent Hacienda Maria Inc. requested that 527.8308 hectares of its
landholdings be placed under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. Receiving
compensation therefor, HMI allowed petitioners and other occupants to cultivate the
landholdings so that the same may be covered under Agrarian Reform Program. In 1982,
a final survey over the entire area was conducted and approved. From 1984 to 1988, the
corresponding TCTs and EPs covering the entire 527.8308 hectares were issued to
petitioners, among other persons. In December 1997, HMI filed with RARAD petitions
seeking the declaration of erroneous coverage under Presidential Decree No. 27 of
277.5008 hectares of its former landholdings. HMI claimed that said area was not
devoted to either rice or corn, that the area was untenanted, and that no compensation was
paid therefor. RARAD rendered a decision declaring as void the TCTs and EPs awarded
to petitioners because the land covered was not devoted to rice and corn, and neither was
there any established tenancy relations between HMI and petitioners. Petitioners appealed
to the DARAB which affirmed the RARAD Decision. On appeal to the CA, the same was
dismissed. Petitioners contended that the EPs became indefeasible after the expiration of
one year from their registration.
Issue:
Whether or not EPs have become indefeasible one year after their issuance
Held:
After complying with the procedure in Section 105 of Presidential Decree No.
1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree where the DAR is required to
issue the corresponding certificate of title after granting an EP to tenant-farmers who
have complied with Presidential Decree No. 27, the TCTs issued to petitioners pursuant
to their EPs acquire the same protection accorded to other TCTs. The certificate of title
becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date
of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent. Lands covered by such title
may no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed to
another person.