Professional Documents
Culture Documents
aisadc
SYLLABUS
1.LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM
LAW; LAND ACQUISITION; SECTION 16(e) THEREOF; CONSTRUED. Section
16(e) of RA 6657 provides as follows: "Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private
Lands . . . (e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case
of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank
designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with
this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the
proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines. . . ." It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be
made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred
that the deposit can be made in any other form. If it were the intention to include a "trust
account" among the valid modes of deposit, that should have been made express, or at
least, qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly deduced that a
under Section 16(e) and final compensation under Section 18 of purposes of exercising
the landowner's right to appropriate the same. The immediate effect in both situations is
the same, the landowner is deprived of the use and possession of his property for which
he should be fairly and immediately compensated. Fittingly, we reiterate the cardinal rule
that: ". . . within the context of the State's inherent power of eminent domain, just
compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the
owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its
taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered 'just' for the
property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his
land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount
necessary to cope with his loss."
DECISION
FRANCISCO, J :
p
It has been declared that the duty of the court to protect the weak and the underprivileged
should not be carried out to such an extent as deny justice to the landowner whenever
truth and justice happen to be on his side. 1 As eloquently stated by Justice Isagani Cruz:
cdasia
". . . social justice or any justice for that matter is for the deserving,
whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true
that, in case of reasonable doubt, we are called upon to tilt the balance in favor
of the poor, to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and
compassion. But never is it justified to prefer the poor simply because they are
poor, or to reject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always
be served, for poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law." 2
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) (G.R. No. 118745) and Land Bank of the Philippines (G.R. No. 118712)
following the adverse ruling by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 33465.
However, upon motion filed by private respondents, the petitions were ordered
consolidated. 3
Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on October 20, 1994,
which granted private respondents' Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus and ruled as
follows:
cdtai
P 1,455,207.31Pedro L. Yap
P 135,482.12Heirs of Emiliano Santiago
P15,914,127.77AMADCOR;
c)The DAR-designated bank is ordered to allow the petitioners to
withdraw the above-deposited amounts without prejudice to the final
determination of just compensation by the proper authorities; and
d)Respondent DAR is ordered to 1) immediately conduct summary
administrative proceedings to determine the just compensation for the
lands of the petitioners giving the petitioners 15 days from notice within
which to submit evidence and to 2) decide the cases within 30 days after
they are submitted for decision." 4
aisadc
Likewise, petitioners seek the reversal of the Resolution dated January 18, 1995, 5
denying their motion for reconsideration.
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 (CARL, Republic Act No. 6657). Aggrieved by the alleged lapses
of the DAR and the Landbank with respect to the valuation and payment of compensation
for their land pursuant to the provisions of RA 6657, private respondents filed with this
Court a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for preliminary mandatory
injunction. Private respondents questioned the validity of DAR Administrative Order No.
6, Series of 1992 6 and DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990, 7 and 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.
cdta
On October 20, 1994, the respondent court rendered the assailed decision in
favor of private respondents. 14 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but
respondent court denied the same. 15
Hence, the instant petitions.
cdt
On March 20, 1995, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition
in G.R. No. 118745 alleging that the appeal has no merit and is merely intended to
delay the finality of the appealed decision. 16 The Court, however, denied the motion
and instead required the respondents to file their comments. 17
Petitioners submit that respondent court erred in (1) declaring as null and void
DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990, insofar as it provides for the
opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposit in cash or in bonds, and (2) in holding that
private respondents are entitled as a matter of right to the immediate and provisional
release of the amounts deposited in trust pending the final resolution of the cases it
has filed for just compensation.
Anent the first assignment of error, petitioners maintain that the word "deposit" as used in
Section 16(e) of RA 6657 referred merely to the act of depositing and in no way excluded
the opening of a trust account as a form of deposit. Thus, in opting for the opening of a
trust account as the acceptable form of deposit through Administrative Circular No. 9,
petitioner DAR did not commit any grave abuse of discretion since it merely exercised its
power to promulgate rules and regulations in implementing the declared policies of RA
6657.
aisadc
It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP
bonds." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any
other form. If it were the intention to include a "trust account" among the valid modes of
deposit, that should have been made express, or at least, qualifying words ought to have
appeared from which it can be fairly deduced that a "trust account" is allowed. In sum,
there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of
the term "deposit."
cdta
Proceeding to the crucial issue of whether or not private respondents are entitled to
withdraw the amounts deposited in trust in their behalf pending the final resolution of the
cases involving the final valuation of their properties, petitioners assert the negative.
cdasia
"The last major challenge to CARP is that the landowner is divested of his
property even before actual payment to him in full of just compensation, in
contravention of a well-accepted principle of eminent domain.
xxx xxx xxx
"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.
cdtai
Notably, however, the aforecited case was used by respondent court in discarding
petitioners' assertion as it found that:
". . . despite the 'revolutionary' character of the expropriation envisioned under
RA 6657 which led the Supreme Court, in the case of Association of Small
Landowners in the Phil. Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (175 SCRA 343),
to conclude that 'payments of the just compensation is not always required to be
made fully in money' even as the Supreme Court admits in the same case
'that the traditional medium for the payment of just compensation is money and
no other' the Supreme Court in said case did not abandon the 'recognized rule
. . . that title to the property expropriated shall pass from the owner to the
expropriator only upon full payment of the just compensation." 23 (Emphasis
supplied.)
aisadc
painful enough for them. But petitioner DAR rubbed it in all the more by withholding
that which rightfully belongs to private respondents in exchange for the taking, under
an authority (the "Association" case) that is, however, misplaced. This is misery twice
bestowed on private respondents, which the Court must rectify.
Hence, we find it unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation
under Section 16(e) and final compensation under Section 18 for purposes of
exercising the landowners' right to appropriate the same. The immediate effect in both
situations is the same, the landowner is deprived of the use and possession of his
property for which he should be fairly and immediately compensated. Fittingly, we
reiterate the cardinal rule that:
cdta
". . . within the context of the State's inherent power of eminent domain, just
compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be
paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a
reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot
be considered 'just' for the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of
being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade
or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss."
24 (Emphasis supplied.)
The promulgation of the "Association" decision endeavored to remove all legal
obstacles in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and
clear the way for the true freedom of the farmer. 25 But despite this, cases involving
its implementation continue to multiply and clog the courts' dockets. Nevertheless, we
are still optimistic that the goal of totally emancipating the farmers from their
bondage will be attained in due time. It must be stressed, however, that in the pursuit
of this objective, vigilance over the rights of the landowners is equally important
because social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners,
who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. 26
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is hereby
DENIED for lack of merit and the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
cdasia
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., is on official leave.
Footnotes
1.Gelos v. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 608, 615 (1992), quoting Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy.
2.Ibid., p. 616.
3.Rollo, p. 7.
cdtai
cdt
9.Sec. 16.Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. For the purposes of acquisition of
private lands, the following shall be followed:
xxx xxx xxx
(e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no
response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by
the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the
DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register
of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of
the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to
the qualified beneficiaries.
10.Rollo, p. 111.
11.Sec. 49. Rules and Regulations. The PARC and the DAR shall have the power to issue
rules and regulations, whether substantive or procedural, to carry out the objects and
purposes of this Act. Said rules shall take effect ten (10) days after the publication in
two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
12.Rollo, pp. 111-112.
13.Rollo, p. 112.
14.Rollo, p. 107.
15.Rollo, p. 149.
16.Rollo, p. 63.
17.Rollo, p. 67.
cdasia
18.Peralta vs. Civil Service Commission, 212 SCRA 425, 432 (1992).
19.Toledo vs. Civil Service Commission , 202 SCRA 507, 54 (1991) citing Teoxon v. Members
of the Board of Administrators, Philippine Veterans Administration, 33 SCRA 585, 589
(1970), citing Santos vs. Estenzo, 109 Phil. 419 (1960); Animos vs. Phil. Veterans
Affairs Office, 174 SCRA 214, 223-224.
20.Shell Philippines, Inc. vs. Central Bank of the Philippines , 162 SCRA 628 (1988).
cdtai
21.Section 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. The LBP shall compensate the
landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and
LBP in accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17 and other
pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally determined by the court as the just
compensation for the land.
22.175 SCRA 343.
23.Decision, Court of Appeals, p. 14.
cdt
24.Municipality of Makati vs. Court of Appeals , 190 SCRA 207, 213 (1990) citing Coscolluela
vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 393, 400 (1988); Provincial Government of
Sorsogon vs. Vda. de Villaroya, 153 SCRA 291, 302 (1987).
25.175 SCRA 343, 392.
26.Mata vs. Court of Appeals , 207 SCRA 748, 753 (1992).