Section

1 of Executive Order No. 229 sets out the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
FIRST DIVISION (CARP). It states that the program
[UDK No. 9864 : December 3, 1990.] ". . . shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produce, all public and
RUFINA VDA. DE TANGUB, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PRESIDING JUDGE of the [CAR] RTC, private agricultural land as provided in Proclamation No. 131 dated July 22, 1987, including
Branch 4, Iligan City, and SPOUSES DOMINGO and EUGENIA MARTIL, Respondents. whenever applicable in accordance with law, other lands of the public domain suitable to
agriculture."

Section 17 thereof.
D E C I S I O N
1) vested the Department of Agrarian Reform with "quasi-judicial powers to determine and
NARVASA, J.: adjudicate agrarian reform matters," and
2) granted it "jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform, except
those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR and the Department of
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, acting as a special agrarian court, in the light of Executive
Agriculture [DA], as well as "powers to punish for contempt and to issue subpoena, subpoena
Orders Numbered 129-A and 229 and Republic Act No. 6657, is what is at issue in the proceeding at bar.
duces tecum and writs to enforce its orders or decisions."
Rufina Tangub and her husband, Andres, now deceased, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del
Section 4 of Executive Order No. 129-A made the Department of Agrarian Reform "responsible for
Norte in March, 1988, "an agrarian case for damages by reason of the(ir) unlawful dispossession . . .was
implementing the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, and, for such purpose," authorized it, among
tenants from the landholding" owned by the Spouses Domingo and Eugenia Martil. 1 Several persons were
others, to
also impleaded as defendants, including the Philippine National Bank, it being alleged by the plaintiff
spouses that said bank, holder of a mortgage on the land involved, had caused foreclosure thereof, "(g) Provide free legal services to agrarian reform beneficiaries and resolve agrarian conflicts and land
resulting in the acquisition of the property by the bank as the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale, and tenure problems; . . (and)
in the sale by the latter, some time later, of portions of the land to the other persons named as its co-
defendants (all employees of the National Steel Corporation), and it being prayed that mortgage and the x x x
transactions thereafter made in relation thereto be annulled and voided. 2 (j) Approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-
In an Order rendered on August 24, 1988, respondent Judge Felipe G. Javier, Jr. dismissed the complaint. agricultural uses: . ."
3 He opined that by virtue of Executive Order No. 229 "providing the mechanisms for the implementation And Section 5 of the same Executive Order No. 129-A specified the powers and functions of the
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program approved on July 24, 1987" Executive No. 129-A Department of Agrarian Reform, including the following:
approved on July 26, 1987, as well as the Rules of the Adjudication Board of the Department of Agrarian
:- nad

Reform, jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over agrarian cases had been transferred to the "(b) Implement all agrarian laws, and for this purpose, punish for contempt and issue subpoena, subpoena
Department of Agrarian Reform. :-cralaw duces tecum, writ of execution of its decision, and other legal processes to ensure successful and
expeditious program implementation; the decisions of the Department may in proper cases, be appealed
The Tangub Spouses filed a petition for Certiorari with this Court, docketed as UDK-8867, assigned to the to the Regional Trial Courts but shall be immediately executory notwithstanding such appeal;
Second Division. Discerning however no special and important reason for taking cognizance of the action,
this Court referred the same to the Court of Appeals, that tribunal having concurrent jurisdiction to act x x x
thereon.
(h) Provide free legal service to agrarian reform beneficiaries and resolve agrarian conflicts and land tenure
: nad

The Court of Appeals, by Decision promulgated on October 23, 1989, 4 dismissed the petition, finding that related problems as may be provided for by laws;
the jurisdictional question had been correctly resolved by the Trial Court. The Court of Appeals, adverted
to a case earlier decided by it, on August 30, 1989, Estanislao Casinillo v. Hon. Felipe G. Javier, Jr., et al., in (i) Have exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for residential,
which it was "emphatically ruled that agrarian cases no longer fall under the jurisdiction of Regional Trial commercial, industrial, and other land uses as may be provided . . ."
Courts but rather under the jurisdiction of the DAR Adjudication Board." 5 The ruling was grounded on the The jurisdiction thus conferred on the Department of Agrarian Reform, i.e.:
provisions of Executive Orders Numbered 229, approved on July 22, 1987, and 129-A, issued on July 26,
1987, in relation to Republic Act No. 6657, effective on June 15, 1988. Said executive orders, it was pointed (a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform;
out, were issued by President Corazon C. Aquino undoubtedly in the exercise of her revolutionary powers
(b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure related problems; and
in accordance with Section 6, Article XVIII [Transitory Provisions] of the 1986 Constitution providing that
the "incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress is (c) approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into
convened." residential, commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses,
The petitioner Rufina Vda. de Tangub, now widowed, is once again before this Court, contending that the is evidently quite as extensive as that theretofore vested in the Regional Trial Court by Presidential Decree
Trial Court's "order of dismissal of August 26, 1988, and the decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals No. 946, which extended to the rights and obligations of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural
affirming it, are patently illegal and unconstitutional" because they deprive "a poor tenant access to courts land, and other matters affecting tenant-farmers, agricultural lessees, settlers, owner-cultivators, farms'
and directly violate R.A. 6657, PD 946, and Batas Bilang 129." cooperatives or organizations under laws, Presidential Decrees, Orders, instructions, Rules and Regulations
in relation to the agrarian reform program. 6 Clearly, the latter must be deemed to have been eliminated
The petition is without merit.
by its being subsumed in the broad jurisdiction conferred on the Department of Agrarian Reform. The
intention evidently was to transfer original jurisdiction to the Department of Agrarian Reform, a
proposition stressed by the rules formulated and promulgated by the Department for the implementation (1) appeals from decisions of the Special Agrarian Courts "may be taken by filing a petition for
of the executive orders just quoted. 7 The rules included the creation of the Agrarian Reform Adjudication review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt or notice of the decision,
Board designed to exercise the adjudicatory functions of the Department, and the allocation to it of . ." 10 and

". . . original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter vested upon it by law, and all cases, disputes, (2) appeals from any "decision, order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or on
controversies and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of
Reform Program under Executive Order No. 229, Executive Order No. 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844, as this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals
amended by Republic Act No. 6289, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their by Certiorari11 except as otherwise provided . . . within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy
implementing rules and regulations." thereof," the "findings of fact of the DAR [being] final and conclusive if based on substantial
evidence." 12
The implementing rules also declare that "(s)pecifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not be
limited to . . (that theretofore vested in the Regional Trial Courts, i.e.) (c)ases involving the rights and The Regional Trial Court of Iligan City was therefore correct in dismissing Agrarian Case No. 1094. It being
obligations of persons engaged in the cultivation and use of agricultural land covered by the a case concerning the rights of the plaintiffs as tenants on agricultural land, not involving the "special
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and other agrarian laws . . ." jurisdiction" of said Trial Court acting as a Special Agrarian Court, it clearly came within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform, or more particularly, the Agrarian Reform
The matter has since been further and definitively clarified by Republic Act No. 6657, which was signed Adjudication Board, established precisely to wield the adjudicatory powers of the Department, supra.
into law by President Aquino on June 10, 1988 and became effective immediately after its "publication in
two (2) national newspapers of general circulation" on June 15, 1988. The Act makes references to and The petitioner had not bothered to substantiate her contention that she has been denied access to the
explicitly recognizes the effectivity and applicability of Presidential Decree No. 229. 8 More particularly, courts, which is just as well. The contention is on its face utterly without merit. It may profit her and her
the Act echoes the provisions of Section 17 of Presidential Decree No. 229, supra, investing the counsel to realize that apart from granting all concerned parties access to a quasi-judicial forum (the
Department of Agrarian Reform with original jurisdiction, generally, over all cases involving agrarian laws, Adjudication Board of the Department of Agrarian Reform), the law strives to make resolution of
although, as shall shortly be pointed out, it restores to the Regional Trial Court, limited jurisdiction over controversies therein more expeditious and inexpensive, by providing not only that the Board "shall not
two groups of cases. Section 50 reads as follows: be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence," supra, but also that, as explicitly stated by the
penultimate paragraph of Section 50 of the Act:
"SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to
:-cralaw

determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all "Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or their
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive organizations in any proceedings before the DAR: Provided, however, That when there are two or more
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture [DA] and the Department of Environment and Natural representatives for any individual or group, the representatives should choose only one among themselves
Resources [DENR]. to represent such party or group before any DAR proceedings."
It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is DISMISSED, and the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to G.R. SP. No. 16725 dated October 23, 1989, AFFIRMED, without pronouncement as to costs.
ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case. Toward
this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive
determination of every action or proceeding before it.
It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require submission of
reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers to interrogatories and issue
subpoena and subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized
officers. It shall likewise have the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and

subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.

x x x

Notwithstanding an appeal to the court of appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be immediately
executory." 9
The Regional Trial Courts have not, however, been completely divested of jurisdiction over agrarian reform
matters. Section 56 of RA 6657, on the other hand, confers "special jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian
Courts," which are Regional Trial Courts designated by the Supreme Court at least one (1) branch within
each province to act as such. These Regional Trial Courts qua Special Agrarian Courts have, according to
Section 57 of the same law, original and exclusive jurisdiction over:

1) "all petitions for the determination of just compensation to land-owners," and

2) "the prosecution of all criminal offenses under . . [the] Act."

In these cases, "(t)he Rules of Court shall apply . . unless modified by . . . (the) Act."

It is relevant to mention in this connection that
G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 On August 17, 1989, petitioner filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO), Cabuyao,
Laguna a "Protest and Objection" to the compulsory acquisition of the property on the ground that the
STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, area was not appropriate for agricultural purposes. The area was rugged in terrain with slopes of 18%
vs. and above and that the occupants of the land were squatters, who were not entitled to any land as
COURT OF APPEALS, JUAN B. AMANTE, FRANCISCO L. ANDAL, LUCIA ANDAL, ANDREA P. AYENDE, LETICIA P. BALAT, FILOMENA beneficiaries.7
B. BATINO, ANICETO A. BURGOS, JAIME A. BURGOS, FLORENCIA CANUBAS, LORETO A. CANUBAS, MAXIMO A. CANUBAS,
REYNALDO CARINGAL, QUIRINO C. CASALME, BENIGNO A. CRUZAT, ELINO A. CRUZAT, GREGORIO F. CRUZAT, RUFINO C.
CRUZAT, SERGIO CRUZAT, SEVERINO F. CRUZAT, VICTORIA DE SAGUN, SEVERINO DE SAGUN, FELICISIMO A. GONZALES, On August 29, 1989, the farmer beneficiaries together with the BARC chairman answered the protest
FRANCISCO A. GONZALES, GREGORIO GONZALES, LEODEGARIO N. GONZALES, PASCUAL P. GONZALES, ROLANDO A.
GONZALES, FRANCISCO A. JUANGCO, GERVACIO A. JUANGCO, LOURDES U. LUNA, ANSELMO M. MANDANAS, CRISANTO
and objection stating that the slope of the land is not 18% but only 5-10% and that the land is suitable
MANDANAS, EMILIO M. MANDANAS, GREGORIO A. MANDANAS, MARIO G. MANDANAS, TEODORO MANDANAS, and economically viable for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the Certification of the Department of
CONSTANCIO B. MARQUEZ, EUGENIO B. MARQUEZ, ARMANDO P. MATIENZO, DANIEL D. MATIENZO, MAXIMINO MATIENZO, Agriculture, municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna.8
PACENCIA P. MATIENZO, DOROTEA L. PANGANIBAN, JUANITO T. PEREZ, MARIANITO T. PEREZ, SEVERO M. PEREZ, INOCENCIA
S. PASQUIZA, BIENVENIDO F. PETATE, IGNACIO F. PETATE, JUANITO PETATE, PABLO A. PLATON, PRECILLO V. PLATON,
AQUILINO B. SUBOL, CASIANO T. VILLA, DOMINGO VILLA, JUAN T. VILLA, MARIO C. VILLA, NATIVIDAD A. VILLA, JACINTA S. On September 8, 1989, MARO Belen dela Torre made a summary investigation report and forwarded the
ALVARADO, RODOLFO ANGELES, DOMINGO A. CANUBAS, EDGARDO L. CASALME, QUIRINO DE LEON, LEONILO M. ENRIQUEZ, Compulsory Acquisition Folder Indorsement (CAFI) to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (hereafter,
CLAUDIA P. GONZALES, FELISA R. LANGUE, QUINTILLANO LANGUE, REYNALDO LANGUE, ROMEO S. LANGUE, BONIFACIO VILLA,
PARO).9
ROGELIO AYENDE, ANTONIO B. FERNANDEZ, ZACARIAS HERRERA, ZACARIAS HERRERA, REYNARIO U. LAZO, AGAPITO
MATIENZO, DIONISIO F. PETATE, LITO G. REYES, JOSE M. SUBOL, CELESTINO G. TOPI NO, ROSA C. AMANTE, SOTERA CASALME,
REMIGIO M. SILVERIO, THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD,
On September 21, 1989, PARO Durante Ubeda forwarded his endorsement of the compulsory acquisition
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAGUNA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV, and REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER FOR REGION to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
IV, respondents.

On November 23, 1989, Acting Director Eduardo C. Visperas of the Bureau of Land Acquisition and
PARDO, J.: Development, DAR forwarded two (2) Compulsory Acquisition Claim Folders covering the landholding of
SRRDC, covered by TCT Nos. T-81949 and T-84891 to the President, Land Bank of the Philippines for
The case before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of further review and evaluation.10
Appeals1 affirming the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board2 (hereafter
DARAB) ordering the compulsory acquisition of petitioner's property under the Comprehensive Agrarian On December 12, 1989, Secretary of Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago sent two (2) notices of
Reform Program (CARP). acquisition11 to petitioner, stating that petitioner's landholdings covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891,
containing an area of 188.2858 and 58.5800 hectares, valued at P4,417,735.65 and P1,220,229.93,
Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (hereafter, SRRDC) was the registered owner of respectively, had been placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
two parcels of land, situated at Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891,
with a total area of 254.6 hectares. According to petitioner, the parcels of land are watersheds, which On February 6, 1990, petitioner SRRDC in two letters12 separately addressed to Secretary Florencio B.
provide clean potable water to the Canlubang community, and that ninety (90) light industries are now Abad and the Director, Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution, sent its formal protest, protesting
located in the area.3 not only the amount of compensation offered by DAR for the property but also the two (2) notices of
acquisition.
Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped its rights over the property, thereby destroying the
ecosystem. Sometime in December 1985, respondents filed a civil case4 with the Regional Trial Court, On March 17, 1990, Secretary Abad referred the case to the DARAB for summary proceedings to
Laguna, seeking an easement of a right of way to and from Barangay Casile. By way of counterclaim, determine just compensation under R. A. No. 6657, Section 16.
however, petitioner sought the ejectment of private respondents.
On March 23, 1990, the LBP returned the two (2) claim folders previously referred for review and
In October 1986 to August 1987, petitioner filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Cabuyao, Laguna evaluation to the Director of BLAD mentioning its inability to value the SRRDC landholding due to some
separate complaints for forcible entry against respondents.5 deficiencies.

After the filing of the ejectment cases, respondents petitioned the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) On March 28, 1990, Executive Director Emmanuel S. Galvez wrote Land Bank President Deogracias Vistan
for the compulsory acquisition of the SRRDC property under the CARP. to forward the two (2) claim folders involving the property of SRRDC to the DARAB for it to conduct
summary proceedings to determine the just compensation for the land.
On August 11, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Cabuyao, Laguna issued a notice
of coverage to petitioner and invited its officials or representatives to a conference on August 18, On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines stating that its property
1989.6 During the meeting, the following were present: representatives of petitioner, the Land Bank of under the aforesaid land titles were exempt from CARP coverage because they had been classified as
the Philippines, PARCCOM, PARO of Laguna, MARO of Laguna, the BARC Chairman of Barangay Casile and watershed area and were the subject of a pending petition for land conversion.
some potential farmer beneficiaries, who are residents of Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna. It was the
consensus and recommendation of the assembly that the landholding of SRRDC be placed under
On May 10, 1990, Director Narciso Villapando of BLAD turned over the two (2) claim folders (CACF's) to
compulsory acquisition.
the Executive Director of the DAR Adjudication Board for proper administrative valuation. Acting on the
CACF's, on September 10, 1990, the Board promulgated a resolution asking the office of the Secretary of On December 19, 1991, DARAB promulgated a decision, the decretal portion of which reads:
Agrarian Reform (DAR) to first resolve two (2) issues before it proceeds with the summary land valuation
proceedings.13
"WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Board hereby orders:

The issues that need to be threshed out were as follows: (1) whether the subject parcels of land fall
"1. The dismissal for lack of merit of the protest against the compulsory coverage of the
within the coverage of the Compulsory Acquisition Program of the CARP; and (2) whether the petition for
landholdings of Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
land conversion of the parcels of land may be granted. 81949 and 84891 with an area of 254.766 hectares) in Barangay Casile, Municipality of
Cabuyao, Province of Laguna under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is hereby
On December 7, 1990, the Office of the Secretary, DAR, through the Undersecretary for Operations affirmed;
(Assistant Secretary for Luzon Operations) and the Regional Director of Region IV, submitted a report
answering the two issues raised. According to them, firstly, by virtue of the issuance of the notice of
"2. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to pay Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation
coverage on August 11, 1989, and notice of acquisition on December 12, 1989, the property is covered
the amount of Seven Million Eight Hundred Forty-One Thousand, Nine Hundred Ninety Seven
under compulsory acquisition. Secondly, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990, Section IV D also
Pesos and Sixty-Four centavos (P7,841,997.64) for its landholdings covered by the two (2)
supports the DAR position on the coverage of the said property. During the consideration of the case by
Transfer Certificates of Title mentioned above. Should there be a rejection of the payment
the Board, there was no pending petition for land conversion specifically concerning the parcels of land
tendered, to open, if none has yet been made, a trust account for said amount in the name of
in question.
Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation;

On February 19, 1991, the Board sent a notice of hearing to all the parties interested, setting the hearing
"3. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Laguna to cancel with dispatch Transfer
for the administrative valuation of the subject parcels of land on March 6, 1991. However, on February
certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949 and new one be issued in the name of the Republic
22, 1991, Atty. Ma. Elena P. Hernandez-Cueva, counsel for SRRDC, wrote the Board requesting for its
of the Philippines, free from liens and encumbrances;
assistance in the reconstruction of the records of the case because the records could not be found as her
co-counsel, Atty. Ricardo Blancaflor, who originally handled the case for SRRDC and had possession of all
the records of the case was on indefinite leave and could not be contacted. The Board granted counsel's "4 The Department of Environment and Natural Resources either through its Provincial Office
request and moved the hearing to April 4, 1991. in Laguna or the Regional Office, Region IV, to conduct a final segregation survey on the lands
covered by Transfer certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949 so the same can be transferred
by the Register of Deeds to the name of the Republic of the Philippines;
On March 18, 1991, SRRDC submitted a petition to the Board for the latter to resolve SRRDC's petition
for exemption from CARP coverage before any administrative valuation of their landholding could be had
by the Board. "5. The Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform through its Municipal and
Provincial Agrarian Reform Office to take immediate possession on the said landholding after
Title shall have been transferred to the name of the Republic of the Philippines, and distribute
On April 4, 1991, the initial DARAB hearing of the case was held and subsequently, different dates of
the same to the immediate issuance of Emancipation Patents to the farmer-beneficiaries as
hearing were set without objection from counsel of SRRDC. During the April 15, 1991 hearing, the
determined by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of Cabuyao, Laguna."17
subdivision plan of subject property at Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna was submitted and marked as Exhibit "5"
for SRRDC. At the hearing on April 23, 1991, the Land Bank asked for a period of one month to value the
land in dispute. On January 20, 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, Branch 24, rendered a decision in Civil Case No. B-
233318ruling that respondents were builders in bad faith.
At the hearing on April 23, 1991, certification from Deputy Zoning Administrator Generoso B. Opina was
presented. The certification issued on September 8, 1989, stated that the parcels of land subject of the On February 6, 1992, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review of the DARAB
case were classified as "industrial Park" per Sanguniang Bayan Resolution No. 45-89 dated March 29, decision.19 On November 5, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision affirming the decision of
1989.14 DARAB. The decretal portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads:

To avert any opportunity that the DARAB might distribute the lands to the farmer beneficiaries, on April "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the DARAB decision dated September 19, 1991 is
30, 1991, petitioner filed a petition15 with DARAB to disqualify private respondents as beneficiaries. AFFIRMED, without prejudice to petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation
However, DARAB refused to address the issue of beneficiaries. ventilating its case with the Special Agrarian Court on the issue of just compensation."20Hence,
this petition.21
In the meantime, on January 20, 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, Branch 24, rendered a
decision,16 finding that private respondents illegally entered the SRRDC property, and ordered them On December 15, 1993, the Court issued a Resolution which reads:
evicted.
"G. R. Nos. 112526 (Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.)
On July 11, 1991, DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong issued a memorandum directing the Land Bank of the Considering the compliance, dated December 13, 1993, filed by counsel for petitioner, with
Philippines to open a trust account in favor of SRRDC, for P5,637,965.55, as valuation for the SRRDC the resolution of December 8, 1993 which required petitioner to post a cash bond or surety
property. bond in the amount of P1,500,000.00 Pesos before issuing a temporary restraining order
 prayed for, manifesting that it has posted a CASH BOND in the same amount with the Cashier e.) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of
of the Court as evidenced by the attached official receipt no. 315519, the Court resolved to rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible
ISSUE the Temporary Retraining Order prayed for. bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in
accordance with this act, the DAR shall make immediate possession of the land
and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue Transfer Certificate of Titles
"The Court therefore, resolved to restrain: (a) the Department of Agrarian Reform
(TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter
Adjudication Board from enforcing its decision dated December 19, 1991 in DARAB Case No.
proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
JC-R-IV-LAG-0001, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a Decision dated November
5, 1993, and which ordered, among others, the Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian
Reform through its Municipal and Provincial Reform Office to take immediate possession of f.) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court23 of
the landholding in dispute after title shall have been transferred to the name of the Republic proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
of the Philippines and to distribute the same through the immediate issuance of Emancipation
Patents to the farmer-beneficiaries as determined by the Municipal Agrarian Officer of
In compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and farmer beneficiaries
Cabuyao, Laguna, (b) The Department of Agrarian Reform and/or the Department of Agrarian
must first be identified. After identification, the DAR shall send a notice of acquisition to the landowner,
Reform Adjudication Board, and all persons acting for and in their behalf and under their
by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and
authority from entering the properties involved in this case and from introducing permanent
barangay hall of the place where the property is located.
infrastructures thereon; and (c) the private respondents from further clearing the said
properties of their green cover by the cutting or burning of trees and other vegetation,
effective today until further orders from this Court."22 Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice of acquisition, the landowner, his administrator or
representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
The main issue raised is whether the property in question is covered by CARP despite the fact that the
entire property formed part of a watershed area prior to the enactment of R. A. No. 6657. If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and
surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty (30) days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase price. If the landowner accepts, he
Under Republic Act No. 6657, there are two modes of acquisition of private land: compulsory and
executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of
voluntary. In the case at bar, the Department of Agrarian Reform sought the compulsory acquisition of
title. Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
subject property under R. A. No. 6657, Section 16, to wit:
pays the owner the purchase price. If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a reply, the
DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine just compensation for the land. The
"Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. For purposes of acquisition of private landowner, the LBP representative and other interested parties may submit evidence on just
lands, the following procedures shall be followed: compensation within fifteen days from notice. Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide
the case and inform the owner of its decision and the amount of just compensation.
a.) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR
shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery Upon receipt by the owner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or lack of response
or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal from the latter, the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank.
building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of
shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay corresponding value in accordance with title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer
the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof. beneficiaries. Any party may question the decision of the DAR in the special agrarian courts (provisionally
the Supreme Court designated branches of the regional trial court as special agrarian courts) for final
determination of just compensation.
b.) Within thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of written notice by
personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or
representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition to hasten the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Under Sec. 16 of the CARL, the
first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land, the landowners and the farmer
c.) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner
beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the identification process shall be made. To fill this gap,
the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers
on July 26, 1989, the DAR issued Administrative Order No. 12, series of 1989, which set the operating
a deed of transfer in favor of the government and other muniments of title.
procedure in the identification of such lands. The procedure is as follows:

d.) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary
A. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), with the assistance of the pertinent
administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), shall:
the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is
deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) 1. Update the masterlist of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his area of
days after it is submitted for decision. responsibility; the masterlist should include such information as required under the attached
CARP masterlist form which shall include the name of the landowner, landholding area, 4. Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder, together with the duly
TCT/OCT number, and tax declaration number. accomplished valuation forms and his recommendations, to the Central Office.

2. Prepare the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) or The LBP representative and the MARO concerned shall be furnished a copy each of his report.
landholding covered under Phase I and II of the CARP except those for which the landowners
have already filed applications to avail of other modes of land acquisition. A case folder shall
C. DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution
contain the following duly accomplished forms:
(BLAD), shall:

a) CARP CA Form 1MARO investigation report 1. Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO, review, evaluate and
determine the final land valuation of the property covered by the case folder. A summary
b) CARP CA Form No 2 Summary investigation report findings and evaluation review and evaluation report shall be prepared and duly certified by the BLAD Director and
the personnel directly participating in the review and final valuation.
c) CARP CA Form 3Applicant's Information sheet
2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized representative, a notice
of acquisition (CARP Form 8) for the subject property. Serve the notice to the landowner
d) CARP CA Form 4 Beneficiaries undertaking
personally or through registered mail within three days from its approval. The notice shall
include among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and the amount of just
e) CARP CA Form 5 Transmittal report to the PARO compensation offered by DAR.

The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the above-mentioned forms 3. Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the BLAD shall prepare and submit
have been examined and verified by him and that the same are true and correct. to the Secretary for approval the order of acquisition. However, in case of rejection or non-
reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing
3. Send notice of coverage and a letter of invitation to a conference/meeting to the to determine just compensation, in accordance with the procedures provided under
landowner covered by the Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder. Invitations to the said Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1989. Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's
conference meeting shall also be sent to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the BARC decision on just compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for
representatives, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) representative, and the other approval the required order of acquisition.
interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property.
4. Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon deposit of
He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit the views, objection, payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the Secretary shall
agreements or suggestions of the participants thereon. The landowner shall also ask to immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer
indicate his retention area. The minutes of the meeting shall be signed by all participants in Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the property is
the conference and shall form an integral part of the CACF. transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take possession of the land for redistribution to
qualified beneficiaries."

4. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO).
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO)
keep an updated master list of all agricultural lands under the CARP in his area of responsibility
B. The PARO shall: containing all the required information. The MARO prepares a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder
(CACF) for each title covered by CARP. The MARO then sends the landowner a "Notice of Coverage" and
1. Ensure the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his MAROs. a "letter of invitation" to a "conference/ meeting" over the land covered by the CACF. He also sends
invitations to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and other interested parties to discuss the
2. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of the land in accordance inputs to the valuation of the property and solicit views, suggestions, objections or agreements of the
with A.O. No. 6, series of 1988. The valuation worksheet and the related CACF valuation forms
parties. At the meeting, the landowner is asked to indicate his retention area.
shall be duly certified correct by the PARO and all the personnel who participated in the
accomplishment of these forms.
The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) who shall
complete the valuation of the land. Ocular inspection and verification of the property by the PARO shall
3. In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through ocular inspection and be mandatory when the computed value of the estate exceeds P500,000.00. Upon determination of the
verification of the property. This ocular inspection and verification shall be mandatory when
valuation, the PARO shall forward all papers together with his recommendation to the Central Office of
the computed value exceeds P500,000 per estate. the DAR. The DAR Central Office, specifically, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD)
shall prepare, on the signature of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative, a notice of
acquisition of the subject property. From this point, the provisions of R. A. No. 6657, Section 16 shall The authority of the municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna to issue zoning classification is an exercise of its
apply. police power, not the power of eminent domain. "A zoning ordinance is defined as a local city or
municipal legislation which logically arranges, prescribes, defines and apportions a given political
subdivision into specific land uses as present and future projection of needs."27
For a valid implementation of the CARP Program, two notices are required: (1) the notice of coverage
and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the representative of the
BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to DAR A. O. No. 12, series of In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform28 we held that lands classified as non-agricultural
1989; and (2) the notice of acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL. prior to the effectivity of the CARL may not be compulsorily acquired for distribution to farmer
beneficiaries.
The importance of the first notice, that is, the notice of coverage and the letter of invitation to a
conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed to comply with the However, more than the classification of the subject land as PARK is the fact that subsequent studies and
requirements of administrative due process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State's survey showed that the parcels of land in question form a vital part of a watershed area.29
police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits
to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in
Now, petitioner has offered to prove that the land in dispute is a "watershed or part of the protected
accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of
area for watershed purposes." Ecological balances and environmental disasters in our day and age seem
lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the power of
to be interconnected. Property developers and tillers of the land must be aware of this deadly
eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required
combination. In the case at bar, DAR included the disputed parcels of land for compulsory acquisition
is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the excess and all beneficial rights accruing to
simply because the land was allegedly devoted to agriculture and was titled to SRRDC, hence, private and
the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary.
alienable land that may be subject to CARP.

In the case at bar, DAR has executed the taking of the property in question. However, payment of just
However, the scenario has changed, after an in-depth study, survey and reassessment. We cannot ignore
compensation was not in accordance with the procedural requirement. The law required payment in
the fact that the disputed parcels of land form a vital part of an area that need to be protected for
cash or LBP bonds, not by trust account as was done by DAR.
watershed purposes. In a report of the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB), a
research arm of the DENR, regarding the environmental assessment of the Casile and Kabanga-an river
In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, we held that "The watersheds, they concluded that:
CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the
government on receipt of the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the
"The Casile barangay covered by CLOA in question is situated in the heartland of both
compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the
watersheds. Considering the barangays proximity to the Matangtubig waterworks, the
landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either."24
activities of the farmers which are in conflict with proper soil and water conservation
practices jeopardize and endanger the vital waterworks. Degradation of the land would have
Consequently, petitioner questioned before the Court of Appeals DARAB's decision ordering the double edge detrimental effects. On the Casile side this would mean direct siltation of the
compulsory acquisition of petitioner's property.25 Here, petitioner pressed the question of whether the Mangumit river which drains to the water impounding reservoir below. On the Kabanga-an
property was a watershed, not covered by CARP. side, this would mean destruction of forest covers which acts as recharged areas of the
Matang Tubig springs. Considering that the people have little if no direct interest in the
protection of the Matang Tubig structures they couldn't care less even if it would be
Article 67 of the Water Code of the Philippines (P. D. No. 1067) provides:
destroyed.

"Art. 67. Any watershed or any area of land adjacent to any surface water or overlying any
The Casile and Kabanga-an watersheds can be considered a most vital life support system to
ground water may be declared by the Department of Natural resources as a protected area.
thousands of inhabitants directly and indirectly affected by it. From these watersheds come
Rules and Regulations may be promulgated by such Department to prohibit or control such
the natural God-given precious resource water. x x x x x
activities by the owners or occupants thereof within the protected area which may damage or
cause the deterioration of the surface water or ground water or interfere with the
investigation, use, control, protection, management or administration of such waters." Clearing and tilling of the lands are totally inconsistent with sound watershed management.
More so, the introduction of earth disturbing activities like road building and erection of
permanent infrastructures. Unless the pernicious agricultural activities of the Casile farmers
Watersheds may be defined as "an area drained by a river and its tributaries and enclosed by a boundary
are immediately stopped, it would not be long before these watersheds would cease to be of
or divide which separates it from adjacent watersheds." Watersheds generally are outside the commerce
value. The impact of watershed degredation threatens the livelihood of thousands of people
of man, so why was the Casile property titled in the name of SRRDC? The answer is simple. At the time of
dependent upon it. Toward this, we hope that an acceptable comprehensive watershed
the titling, the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources had not declared the property as
development policy and program be immediately formulated and implemented before the
watershed area. The parcels of land in Barangay Casile were declared as "PARK" by a Zoning Ordinance
irreversible damage finally happens.
adopted by the municipality of Cabuyao in 1979, as certified by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board. On January 5, 1994, the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabuyao, Laguna issued a Resolution26 voiding the
zoning classification of the land at Barangay Casile as Park and declaring that the land is now classified as Hence, the following are recommended:
agricultural land.
 7.2 The Casile farmers should be relocated and given financial assistance. Hence, during the hearing at DARAB, there was proof showing that the disputed parcels of land may be
excluded from the compulsory acquisition coverage of CARP because of its very high slopes.
7.3 Declaration of the two watersheds as critical and in need of immediate
rehabilitation. To resolve the issue as to the true nature of the parcels of land involved in the case at bar, the Court
directs the DARAB to conduct a re-evaluation of the issue.
7.4 A comprehensive and detailed watershed management plan and program be
formulated and implemented by the Canlubang Estate in coordination with IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 27234.
pertinent government agencies."30
In lieu thereof, the Court REMANDS the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and determination of the
The ERDB report was prepared by a composite team headed by Dr. Emilio Rosario, the ERDB Director, nature of the parcels of land involved to resolve the issue of its coverage by the Comprehensive Land
who holds a doctorate degree in water resources from U.P. Los Banos in 1987; Dr. Medel Limsuan, who Reform Program.
obtained his doctorate degree in watershed management from Colorado University (US) in 1989; and Dr.
Antonio M. Dano, who obtained his doctorate degree in Soil and Water management Conservation from
In the meantime, the effects of the CLOAs issued by the DAR to supposed farmer beneficiaries shall
U.P. Los Banos in 1993.
continue to be stayed by the temporary restraining order issued on December 15, 1993, which shall
remain in effect until final decision on the case.
Also, DENR Secretary Angel Alcala submitted a Memorandum for the President dated September 7, 1993
(Subject: PFVR HWI Ref.: 933103 Presidential Instructions on the Protection of Watersheds of the

Canlubang Estates at Barrio Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna) which reads:

"It is the opinion of this office that the area in question must be maintained for watershed
purposes for ecological and environmental considerations, among others. Although the 88
families who are the proposed CARP beneficiaries will be affected, it is important that a larger
view of the situation be taken as one should also consider the adverse effect on thousands of
residents downstream if the watershed will not be protected and maintained for watershed
purposes.

"The foregoing considered, it is recommended that if possible, an alternate area be allocated
for the affected farmers, and that the Canlubang Estates be mandated to protect and
maintain the area in question as a permanent watershed reserved."31

The definition does not exactly depict the complexities of a watershed. The most important product of a
watershed is water which is one of the most important human necessity. The protection of watersheds
ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only
damage property but cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an "intergenerational responsibility"
that needs to be answered now.

Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the DARAB hearing, petitioner
presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of 18% and over, which exempted the land from the
coverage of CARL. R. A. No. 6657, Section 10, provides:

"Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and
found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestration, fish sanctuaries and
breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses
including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational

purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites and
convents appurtenent thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and
penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine
centers, and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already
developed shall be exempt from coverage of this Act."
 [G.R. No. 154112. September 23, 2004] Philippines (LBP) will determine the value of the subject land pursuant to Executive Order No. 405 dated
14 June 1990.

On 29 September 1999, private respondent Cuenca filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, La
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, petitioner, vs. ROBERTO J. CUENCA and Hon. ALFONSO B. Carlota City, a complaint against Noe Fortunado and Land Bank of the Philippines for Annulment of
COMBONG JR., in His Capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Notice of Coverage and Declaration of Unconstitutionality of E.O. No. 405, Series of 1990, With
La Carlota City, respondents. Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 713.

D E C I S I O N In his complaint, Cuenca alleged, inter alia, that the implementation of CARP in his landholding is no
longer with authority of law considering that, if at all, the implementation should have commenced and
PANGANIBAN, J.:
should have been completed between June 1988 to June 1992, as provided in the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL); that the placing of the subject landholding under CARP is without
All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) the imprimatur of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and the Provincial Agrarian Reform
fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions Coordinating Committee (PARCOM) as required by R.A. 7905; that Executive Order No. 405 dated 14
that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the June 1990 amends, modifies and/or repeals CARL and, therefore, it is unconstitutional considering that
law has granted it special and original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters. on 14 June 1990, then President Corazon Aquino no longer had law-making powers; that the NOTICE OF
COVERAGE is a gross violation of PD 399 dated 28 February 1974.

Private respondent Cuenca prayed that the Notice of Coverage be declared null and void ab initio and
The Case Executive Order No. 405 dated 14 June 1990 be declared unconstitutional.

On 05 October 1999, MARO Noe Fortunado filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the March 15, 2002
[1]

the court a quo has no jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of the action, pursuant to R.A.
Decision and the June 18, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 58536. In the
[2] [3]

6657.
challenged Decision, the CA disposed as follows:

On 12 January 2000, the respondent Judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order directing MARO and
As previously stated, the principal issue raised in the court below involves a pure question of law. Thus, it
LBP to cease and desist from implementing the Notice of Coverage. In the same order, the respondent
being clear that the court a quo has jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of the case below, it
Judge set the hearing on the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on January 17
did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it issued the assailed order denying petitioners motion to
and 18, 2000.
dismiss and granting private respondents application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

On 14 January 2000, MARO Fortunado filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order granting the TRO
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is denied due course and is accordingly DISMISSED. [4]

contending inter alia that the DAR, through the MARO, in the course of implementing the Notice of
Coverage under CARP cannot be enjoined through a Temporary Restraining Order in the light of Sections
The assailed Resolution, on the other hand, denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. 55 and 68 of R.A. 6657.

In an order dated 16 February 2000, the respondent Judge denied MARO Noe Fortunados motion to
The Facts dismiss and issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction directing Fortunado and all persons acting in his
behalf to cease and desist from implementing the Notice of Coverage, and the LBP from proceeding with
the determination of the value of the subject land.
The CA narrated the facts as follows:
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) [thereafter filed before the CA] a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the writ of preliminary injunction issued by
Private respondent Roberto J. Cuenca is the registered owner of a parcel of land designated as Lot No.
respondent Judge on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
816-A and covered by TCT No. 1084, containing an area of 81.6117 hectares, situated in Brgy. Haguimit,
La Carlota City and devoted principally to the planting of sugar cane.
It is the submission of the petitioner that the assailed order is in direct defiance of Republic Act 6657,
particularly Section 55 and 68 thereof, which read:
On 21 September 1999, Noe Fortunado, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of La Carlota City
issued and sent a NOTICE OF COVERAGE to private respondent Cuenca placing the above-described
landholding under the compulsory coverage of R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive SECTION 55. NO RESTRAINING ORDERS OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS No court in the Philippines shall
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The NOTICE OF COVERAGE also stated that the Land Bank of the have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the PARC or any
of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary
to, or in connection with the application, implementation, or enforcement or interpretation of this Act The Courts Ruling
and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform.

SECTION 68 IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FROM COURTS INTERFERENCE No injunction, The Petition has merit.
Restraining Order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower court against the Department
First Issue:
of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and
Jurisdiction
Natural Resources (DENR), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the implementation of their program.

In its bare essentials, petitioners argument is that private respondent, in his Complaint for
Petitioner contends that by virtue of the above provisions, all lower courts, such as the court presided Annulment of the Notice of Coverage, is asking for the exclusion of his landholding from the coverage of
over by respondent Judge, are barred if not prohibited by law to issue orders of injunctions against the the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). According to the DAR, the issue involves the
Department of Agrarian Reform in the full implementation of the Notice of Coverage which is the initial implementation of agrarian reform, a matter over which the DAR has original and exclusive jurisdiction,
step of acquiring lands under R.A. 6657. pursuant to Section 50 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657).

Petitioner also contends that the nature and subject matter of the case below is purely agrarian in On the other hand, private respondent maintains that his Complaint assails mainly the
character over which the court a quo has no jurisdiction and that therefore, it had no authority to issue constitutionality of EO 405. He contends that since the Complaint raises a purely legal issue, it thus falls
the assailed injunction order. [5]
within the jurisdiction of the RTC. We do not agree.

Conflicts involving jurisdiction over agrarian disputes are as tortuous as the history of Philippine
agrarian reform laws. The changing jurisdictional landscape is matched only by the tumultuous struggle
for, and resistance to, the breaking up and distribution of large landholdings.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Stressing that the issue was not simply the improper issuance of the Notice of Coverage, but was Two Basic Rules
mainly the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 405, the CA ruled that the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
had jurisdiction over the case. Consonant with that authority, the court a quo also had the power to issue
writs and processes to enforce or protect the rights of the parties. Two basic rules have guided this Court in determining jurisdiction in these cases. First, jurisdiction
The appellate court likewise held that petitioners reliance on Sections 55 and 68 of RA 6657 had is conferred by law. And second, the nature of the action and the issue of jurisdiction are shaped by the
[8]

been misplaced, because the case was not about a purely agrarian matter. It opined that the prohibition material averments of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. The defenses resorted to in
[9]

in certain statutes against such writs pertained only to injunctions against administrative acts, to the answer or motion to dismiss are disregarded; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend
controversies involving facts, or to the exercise of discretion in technical cases. But on issues involving pure entirely upon the whim of the defendant. [10]

questions of law, courts were not prevented from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit
administrative acts.

Hence, this Petition.

[6] Grant of Jurisdiction

Ever since agrarian reform legislations began, litigants have invariably sought the aid of the
Issues courts. Courts of Agrarian Relations (CARs) were organized under RA 1267 [f]or the enforcement of all
[11]

laws and regulations governing the relation of capital and labor on all agricultural lands under any system
of cultivation. The jurisdiction of these courts was spelled out in Section 7 of the said law as follows:
In its Memorandum, petitioner raises the following issues:
Sec. 7. Jurisdiction of the Court. - The Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the entire
1. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed serious error by not taking into cognizance that the issues Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle all questions, matters, controversies or disputes
raised in the complaint filed by the private respondent, which seeks to exclude his land from the involving all those relationships established by law which determine the varying rights of persons in the
coverage of the CARP, is an agrarian reform matter and within the jurisdiction of the DAR, not with the cultivation and use of agricultural land where one of the parties works the land, and shall have
trial court. concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance over employer and farm employee or labor under
Republic Act Numbered six hundred two and over landlord and tenant involving violations of the Usury
Law (Act No. 2655, as amended) and of inflicting the penalties provided therefor.
2. The Honorable Court of Appeals, with due respect, gravely abused its discretion by sustaining the writ
of injunction issued by the trial court, which is a violation of Sections 55 and 68 of Republic Act No.
6657.
[7] All the powers and prerogatives inherent in or belonging to the then Courts of First Instance (now [12]

the RTCs) were granted to the CARs. The latter were further vested by the Agricultural Land Reform Code
(RA 3844) with original and exclusive jurisdiction over the following matters:
(1) All cases or actions involving matters, controversies, disputes, or money claims arising from agrarian Then came Executive Order No. 229. Under Section 17 thereof, the DAR shall exercise quasi-judicial
[17]

relations: x x x powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all
matters involving implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the DENR and the Department of Agriculture [DA]. The DAR shall also have the powers to
(2) All cases or actions involving violations of Chapters I and II of this Code and Republic Act Number
punish for contempt and to issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecum and writs to enforce its orders or
eight hundred and nine; and
decisions.

(3) Expropriations to be instituted by the Land Authority: x x x. [13] In Quismundo v. CA, this provision was deemed to have repealed Section 12 (a) and (b) of
[18]

Presidential Decree No. 946, which vested the then Courts of Agrarian Relations with original exclusive
jurisdiction over cases and questions involving rights granted and obligations imposed by presidential
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 946 thereafter reorganized the CARs, streamlined their operations,
issuances promulgated in relation to the agrarian reform program.
and expanded their jurisdiction as follows:
Under Section 4 of Executive Order No. 129-A, the DAR was also made responsible for implementing
Sec. 12. Jurisdiction over Subject Matter. - The Courts of Agrarian Relations shall have original and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. In accordance with Section 5 of the same EO, it possessed
exclusive jurisdiction over: the following powers and functions:

a) Cases involving the rights and obligations of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural land (b) Implement all agrarian laws, and for this purpose, punish for contempt and issue subpoena,
except those cognizable by the National Labor Relations Commission; x x x ; subpoena duces tecum, writs of execution of its decisions, and other legal processes to ensure successful
and expeditious program implementation; the decisions of the Department may in proper cases, be
appealed to the Regional Trial Courts but shall be immediately executory notwithstanding such appeal;
b) Questions involving rights granted and obligations imposed by laws, Presidential Decrees, Orders,
Instructions, Rules and Regulations issued and promulgated in relation to the agrarian reform program;
Provided, however, That matters involving the administrative implementation of the transfer of the land x x x x x x x x x
to the tenant-farmer under Presidential Decree No. 27 and amendatory and related decrees, orders,
instructions, rules and regulations, shall be exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, (h) Provide free legal services to agrarian reform beneficiaries and resolve agrarian conflicts and land-
namely: tenure related problems as may be provided for by law;

(1) classification and identification of landholdings; x x x x x x x x x

(2) x x x;
(3) parcellary mapping;
(4) x x x; (l) Have exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for residential,
x x x x x x x x x commercial, industrial, and other land uses as may be provided x x x."

m) Cases involving expropriation of all kinds of land in furtherance of the agrarian reform program; The above grant of jurisdiction to the DAR covers these areas:

x x x x x x x x x (a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform;

p) Ejectment proceedings instituted by the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank involving (b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure related problems; and
lands under their administration and disposition, except urban properties belonging to the Land Bank;
(c) approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into
q) Cases involving violations of the penal provisions of Republic Act Numbered eleven hundred and residential, commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses.
ninety-nine, as amended, Republic Act Numbered thirty eight hundred and forty-four, as amended,
Presidential Decrees and laws relating to agrarian reform; Provided, however, That violations of the said The foregoing provision was as broad as those theretofore vested in the Regional Trial Court by
penal provisions committed by any Judge shall be tried by the courts of general jurisdiction; and Presidential Decree No. 946, as the Court ruled in Vda. de Tangub v. CA, which we quote:
[19]

r) Violations of Presidential Decrees Nos. 815 and 816. x x x. The intention evidently was to transfer original jurisdiction to the Department of Agrarian Reform,
a proposition stressed by the rules formulated and promulgated by the Department for the
The CARs were abolished, however, pursuant to Section 44 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (approved
[14] [15]
implementation of the executive orders just quoted. The rules included the creation of the Agrarian
August 14, 1981), which had fully been implemented on February 14, 1983. Jurisdiction over cases Reform Adjudication Board designed to exercise the adjudicatory functions of the Department, and the
theretofore given to the CARs was vested in the RTCs. [16]
allocation to it of
x x x [O]riginal and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter vested upon it by law, and all cases, Allegations of the Complaint
disputes, controversies and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program under Executive Order No. 229, Executive Order No. 129-A, Republic Act No.
3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6289, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and A careful perusal of respondents Complaint shows that the principal averments and reliefs prayed
[24]

their implementing rules and regulations. for refer -- not to the pure question of law spawned by the alleged unconstitutionality of EO 405 -- but to
the annulment of the DARs Notice of Coverage. Clearly, the main thrust of the allegations is the propriety
The implementing rules also declare that (s)pecifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not be of the Notice of Coverage, as may be gleaned from the following averments, among others:
limited to x x x (that theretofore vested in the Regional Trial Courts, i.e.) (c)ases involving the rights and
obligations of persons engaged in the cultivation and use of agricultural land covered by the 6. This implementation of CARP in the landholding of the [respondent] is contrary to law and, therefore,
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and other agrarian laws x x x. [20]
violates [respondents] constitutional right not to be deprived of his property without due process of
law. The coverage of [respondents] landholding under CARP is NO longer with authority of law. If at all,
In the same case, the Court also held that the jurisdictional competence of the DAR had further the implementation of CARP in the landholding of [respondent] should have commenced and [been]
been clarified by RA 6657 thus: completed between June 1988 to June 1992 as provided for in CARL, to wit: x x x;

x x x. The Act [RA 6657] makes references to and explicitly recognizes the effectivity and applicability of 7. Moreover, the placing of [respondents] landholding under CARP as of 21 September 1999 is without
Presidential Decree No. 229. More particularly, the Act echoes the provisions of Section 17 of the imprimatur of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Presidential Decree No. 229, supra, investing the Department of Agrarian Reform with original Coordinating Committee (PARCOM) as mandated and required by law pursuant to R.A. 7905 x x x;
jurisdiction, generally, over all cases involving agrarian laws, although, as shall shortly be pointed out, it
restores to the Regional Trial Court, limited jurisdiction over two groups of cases. Section 50 reads as x x x x x x x x x
follows:

9. Under the provisions of CARL, it is the PARC and/or the DAR, and not x x x Land Bank, which is
SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to authorized to preliminarily determine the value of the lands as compensation therefor, thus x x x;
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture [DA] and the Department of Environment and Natural x x x x x x x x x
Resources [DENR].
12. That the aforementioned NOTICE OF COVERAGE with intendment and purpose of acquiring
x x x x x x x x x [respondents] aforementioned land is a gross violation of law (PD 399 dated 28 February 1974 which is
still effective up to now) inasmuch as [respondents] land is traversed by and a road frontage as admitted
by the DARs technician and defendant FORTUNADO (MARO) x x x;
It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require submission of
reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers to interrogatories and issue
subpoena and subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized 13. That as reflected in said Pre-Ocular Inspection Report, copy of which is hereto attached as annex D
officers. It shall likewise have the power to punish direct and indirect contempt in the same manner and forming part hereof, [respondents] land is above eighteen percent (18%) slope and therefore,
subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court. [21]
automatically exempted and excluded from the operation of Rep. Act 6657, x x x. (Italics supplied)
[25]

Nonetheless, we have held that the RTCs have not been completely divested of jurisdiction over In contrast, the 14-page Complaint touches on the alleged unconstitutionality of EO 405 by merely
agrarian reform matters. Section 56 of RA 6657 confers special jurisdiction on Special Agrarian Courts, making these two allegations:
which are actually RTCs designated as such by the Supreme Court. Under Section 57 of the same law,
[22]

these Special Agrarian Courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the following matters: 10. Executive Order No. 405 dated 14 June 1990 (issued by the then President Corazon Aquino) is
unconstitutional for it plainly amends, modifies and/or repeals CARL. On 14 June 1990, then President
1) all petitions for the determination of just compensation to land-owners, and Corazon Aquino had no longer law-making powers as the Philippine Congress was by then already
organized, existing and operational pursuant to the 1987 Constitution. A copy of the said Executive Order
is hereto attached as Annex B forming part hereof.
2) the prosecution of all criminal offenses under x x x [the] Act.

11. Our constitutional system of separation of powers renders the said Executive Order No. 405
The above delineation of jurisdiction remains in place to this date. Administrative Circular No. 29- unconstitutional and all valuations made, and to be made, by the defendant Land Bank pursuant thereto
2002 of this Court stresses the distinction between the quasi-judicial powers of the DAR under Sections
[23]
are null and void and without force and effect.Indispensably and ineludibly, all related rules, regulations,
50 and 55 of RA 6657 and the jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian Courts referred to by Sections 56 and 57 orders and other issuances issued or promulgated pursuant to said Executive Order No. 405 are also null
of the same law. and void ab initio and without force and effect.
[26]
 We stress that the main subject matter raised by private respondent before the trial court was not
the issue of compensation (the subject matter of EO 405 ). Note that no amount had yet been determined
[27]

nor proposed by the DAR. Hence, there was no occasion to invoke the courts function of determining just DIGEST
compensation. [28]
FACTS
Private respondent Cuenca is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in La Carlota City
To be sure, the issuance of the Notice of Coverage constitutes the first necessary step towards the
[29]

and devoted principally to the planting of sugar cane. The MARO of La Carlota City issued and sent a
acquisition of private land under the CARP. Plainly then, the propriety of the Notice relates to the
NOTICE OF COVERAGE to private respondent Cuenca placing the landholding under the compulsory
implementation of the CARP, which is under the quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the DAR. Thus, the DAR could
coverage of R.A. 6657. The NOTICE OF COVERAGE also stated that the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
not be ousted from its authority by the simple expediency of appending an allegedly constitutional or legal
will determine the value of the subject land pursuant to Executive Order No. 405. Private respondent
dimension to an issue that is clearly agrarian.
Cuenca filed with the RTC for Annulment of Notice of Coverage and Declaration of Unconstitutionality of
In view of the foregoing, there is no need to address the other points pleaded by respondent in E.O. No. 405. Cuenca alleged that the implementation of CARP in his landholding is no longer with authority
relation to the jurisdictional issue. We need only to point that in case of doubt, the jurisprudential trend is of law considering that, if at all, the implementation should have commenced and should have been
for courts to refrain from resolving a controversy involving matters that demand the special competence completed between June 1988 to June 1992; that Executive Order No. 405 amends, modifies and/or
of administrative agencies, even if the question[s] involved [are] also judicial in character, as in this case.
[30]
repeals CARL and, therefore, it is unconstitutional considering that then President Corazon Aquino no
longer had law-making powers; that the NOTICE OF COVERAGE is a gross violation of PD 399.
Second Issue: Private respondent Cuenca prayed that the Notice of Coverage be declared null and void ab initio. The
Preliminary Injunction respondent Judge denied MARO Noe Fortunados motion to dismiss and issued a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction directing Fortunado and all persons acting in his behalf to cease and desist from implementing
Having declared the RTCs to be without jurisdiction over the instant case, it follows that the RTC of the Notice of Coverage, and the LBP from proceeding with the determination of the value of the subject
La Carlota City (Branch 63) was devoid of authority to issue the assailed Writ of Preliminary Injunction. That land. The DAR thereafter filed before the CA a petition for certiorari assailing the writ of preliminary
Writ must perforce be stricken down as a nullity. Such nullity is particularly true in the light of the express injunction issued by respondent Judge on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
prohibitory provisions of the CARP and this Courts Administrative Circular Nos. 29-2002 and 38- jurisdiction.
2002. These Circulars enjoin all trial judges to strictly observe Section 68 of RA 6657, which reads: Stressing that the issue was not simply the improper issuance of the Notice of Coverage, but
was mainly the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 405, the CA ruled that the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) had jurisdiction over the case. Consonant with that authority, the court a quo also had the power to
Section 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference. No injunction, restraining issue writs and processes to enforce or protect the rights of the parties.
order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower courts against the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and Natural ISSUE
Resources (DENR) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program. Whether the complaint filed by the private respondent is an agrarian reform and within the
jurisdiction of the DAR, not with the trial court
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Decision and
Resolution REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the February 16, 2000 Order of RULING
the Regional Trial Court of La Carlota City (Branch 63) is ANNULLED and a new one entered, DISMISSING the
Complaint in Civil Case 713. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued therein is also expressly VOIDED. No Yes. A careful perusal of respondents Complaint shows that the principal averments and reliefs
costs. prayed for refer -- not to the pure question of law spawned by the alleged unconstitutionality of EO 405 -
- but to the annulment of the DARs Notice of Coverage. Clearly, the main thrust of the allegations is the
propriety of the Notice of Coverage, as may be gleaned from the following averments. The main subject

matter raised by private respondent before the trial court was not the issue of compensation. Note that
no amount had yet been determined nor proposed by the DAR. Hence, there was no occasion to invoke
the courts function of determining just compensation. To be sure, the issuance of the Notice of Coverage
constitutes the first necessary step towards the acquisition of private land under the CARP. Plainly then,
the propriety of the Notice relates to the implementation of the CARP, which is under the quasi-judicial
jurisdiction of the DAR. Thus, the DAR could not be ousted from its authority by the simple expediency of
appending an allegedly constitutional or legal dimension to an issue that is clearly agrarian.

 [G.R. No. 132767. January 18, 2000] the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under
Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229, and 129-
A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389,
PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SECRETARY OF THE Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their
DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, DAVAO CITY and implementing rules and regulations. Specifically, such
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to the following:

D E C I S I O N . . . .

MENDOZA, J.: b) The valuation of land, and determination and payment of just
compensation, fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance
compensation, amortization payments, and similar disputes
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated August 28, 1997, affirming the
[1]

concerning the functions of the Land Bank of the Philippines.

dismissal by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagum, Davao, of the petition for judicial determination
of the just compensation filed by petitioner for the taking of its property under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program. . . . .

The facts are as follows: The above provision does not negate the original and exclusive jurisdiction vested
in Special Agrarian Court over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners as provided in Section 51 of R.A. 6657.
Petitioner Philippine Veterans Bank owned four parcels of land in Tagum, Davao, which are covered by
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-38666, T-38667, T-6236, and T-27591. The lands were taken by the
Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to landless farmers pursuant to the Comprehensive Note, however, must be taken of Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of
Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657). Dissatisfied with the valuation of the land made by respondents Procedure, which specifically states that,
Land Bank of the Philippines and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB),
petitioner filed a petition for a determination of the just compensation for its property. The petition was The decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and
filed on January 26, 1994 with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagum, Davao, which on February 23, preliminary determination and payment of just
1995, dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period for compensation shall not be appealable to the Board but shall
filing appeals from the orders of the DARAB. Its order states in pertinent parts:
[2]
be brought directly to the Regional Trial Court designated as
Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt
Since this case was filed only on January 26, 1994, the fifteen-day period provided of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one
for under Section 51 of Republic Act 6657 which is the Comprehensive Agrarian motion for reconsideration.
Reform Law within which to appeal, already lapsed.
. . . .
Section 51 of Republic Act No. 6657 provides:
In pursuance thereof, it is clear that the right of a landowner who disagrees with
Section 51. Finality of Determination. - Any case or the valuation fixed by the DAR to file a petition for the judicial fixing of just
controversy before it (DAR) shall be decided within thirty compensation before special agrarian courts must be exercised within the period
(30) days after it is submitted for resolution. Only one (1) provided in Rule XIII, Section 11.
motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Any order,
ruling or decision shall be final after the lapse of fifteen (15) In this case, appellant neither gives information regarding the date of its receipt of
days from receipt of a copy thereof. the questioned Order of the DAR Provincial Adjudicator, nor disputes the
conclusion made by the trial court that, "(s)ince this case was filed only on January
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision was affirmed. It was held that: 26, 1994, the fifteen-day period provided for under Section 51 of Republic Act
6657 which is the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law within which to appeal
already lapsed". The court a quos conclusion therefore stands. It did not commit
Jurisdiction over land valuation cases is lodged in the Department of Agrarian an error in dismissing the petition filed by Philippine Veterans Bank for having
Reform Adjudication Board, as is plainly provided under Rule II of the DARAB been filed out of time.
[3]
Esmsc

Revised Rules of Procedure.

Jksm

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but its motion was likewise denied. Hence, this petition for
Section 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate
review. Petitioner raises the following issue:
Jurisdiction. The Board shall have primary and exclusive
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes, involving the implementation of
 SHOULD A PETITION FOR THE JUDICIAL FIXING OF JUST COMPENSATION BEFORE To implement the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, particularly 50 thereof, Rule XIII, 11 of the DARAB Rules of
SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT BE [FILED] WITHIN THE PERIOD PROVIDED IN RULE XIII, Procedure provides:
SECTION 11 OF THE DARAB RULES OF PROCEDURE AND BEFORE THE DECISION OF THE
DAR PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR BECOMES FINAL AND EXECUTORY?
Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just Compensation. - The
decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary determination and
Petitioner argues that DAR adjudicators have no jurisdiction to determine the just compensation for the payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to the Board but shall be brought
taking of lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, because such jurisdiction is vested directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen
in Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts and, therefore, a petition for the fixing of (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one
just compensation can be filed beyond the 15-day period of appeal provided from the decision of the motion for reconsideration.
Chief

DAR adjudicator.
As we held in Republic v. Court of Appeals, this rule is an acknowledgment by the DARAB that the power
[9]

On the other hand, respondents argue that actions for the fixing of just compensation must be filed in to decide just compensation cases for the taking of lands under R.A. No. 6657 is vested in the courts. It is
the appropriate courts within 15 days from receipt of the decision of the DAR adjudicator, otherwise error to think that, because of Rule XIII, 11, the original and exclusive jurisdiction given to the courts to
such decision becomes final and executory, pursuant to 51 of R.A. No. 6657. decide petitions for determination of just compensation has thereby been transformed into an appellate
jurisdiction. It only means that, in accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary
jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a preliminary manner the
Petitioners contention has no merit.
reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program, but such determination is subject to challenge in the courts.
The pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6657 provides:
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and exclusive" because the question
Sec. 50. Quasi-Judicial Power of the DAR. - The DAR is hereby vested with primary is first passed upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have determination. For that matter, the law may provide that the decision of the DAR is final and
exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the
reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of guarantors of the legality of administrative action. [10]

Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) . . . .

Accordingly, as the petition in the Regional Trial Court was filed beyond the 15-day period provided in
Sec. 57. Special Jurisdiction. - The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and Rule XIII, 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, the trial court correctly dismissed the case and the
exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to
Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the order of dismissal.
landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of
Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified
by this Act. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special
jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision.
Esmmis

There is nothing contradictory between the provision of 50 granting the DAR primary jurisdiction to
determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform," which includes the determination of questions of just
compensation, and the provision of 57 granting Regional Trial Courts "original and exclusive jurisdiction"
over (1) all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowner, and (2) prosecutions of
criminal offenses under R.A. No. 6657. The first refers to administrative proceedings, while the second
[4]

refers to judicial proceedings. Under R.A. No. 6657, the Land Bank of the Philippines is charged with the
preliminary determination of the value of lands placed under land reform program and the
compensation to be paid for their taking. It initiates the acquisition of agricultural lands by notifying the
landowner of the governments intention to acquire his land and the valuation of the same as determined
by the Land Bank. Within 30 days from receipt of notice, the landowner shall inform the DAR of his
[5]

acceptance or rejection of the offer. In the event the landowner rejects the offer, a summary
[6]

administrative proceeding is held by the provincial (PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the central (DARAB)
adjudicator, as the case may be, depending on the value of the land, for the purpose of determining the
compensation for the land. The landowner, the Land Bank, and other interested parties are then
required to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land. The DAR adjudicator decides the
case within 30 days after it is submitted for decision. If the landowner finds the price unsatisfactory, he
[7]

may bring the matter directly to the appropriate Regional Trial Court. [8]

G.R. No. 169008 July 31, 2008 the issuance of a writ of execution on February 23, 2004. Aggrieved of these developments, LBP, on
March 12, 2004, moved to quash the said February 23, 2004 PARAD resolution.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs. On April 6, 2004, even as the motion to quash was yet unresolved, LBP instituted a petition for certiorari
RAYMUNDA MARTINEZ, Respondent. before the CA, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 83276, assailing both the November 11, 2003 and
the February 23, 2004 PARAD resolutions. LBP primarily contended that the Office of the PARAD gravely
abused its discretion when it issued the writ of execution despite the pendency with the SAC of a petition
R E S O L U T I O N
for the fixing of just compensation.

NACHURA, J.:
The CA, finding LBP guilty of forum-shopping for not disclosing the pendency of the Motion to Quash
dated March 12, 2004, dismissed the petition on September 28, 2004, thus:
Before the Court are petitioners September 20, 2007 Motion for Reconsideration1 and November 8,
2007 Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration,2 which seek the reversal of the August 14, 2007
ACCORDINGLY, the present petition for certiorari is DISMISSED outright.
Decision3 in the instant case. To recall, the Court in the challenged decision denied the petition for review
on certiorari and affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 83276.
Consequently, in view of the dismissal of the above-entitled case, we are no longer in a position to act on
the private respondents motion for execution pending appeal.
Lifted from the said assailed decision are the following antecedent facts and proceedings:

Further, this Court, mindful that under Sec. 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, willful and
After compulsory acquisition by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), on November 16, 1993, of
deliberate forum-shopping constitutes direct contempt of court and cause for administrative sanctions,
respondent Martinezs 62.5369-hectare land in Barangay Agpudlos, San Andres, Romblon, pursuant to
which may both be resolved and imposed in the same case where the forum shopping is found, WARNS
Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL), petitioner Land Bank
the counsel of record of the petitioner that a repetition of a similar act of submitting a false certification
of the Philippines (LBP) offered 1,955,485.60 as just compensation. Convinced that the proffered
amount was unjust and confiscatory, respondent rejected it. Thus, the Department of Agrarian Reform shall be dealt with most severely.
Adjudication Board (DARAB), through its Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted
summary administrative proceedings for the preliminary determination of just compensation in SO ORDERED.
accordance with Section 16 (d) of the CARL.
Not persuaded by LBPs motion for reconsideration, the appellate court denied the same on July 15,
On September 4, 2002, PARAD Virgilio M. Sorita, finding some marked inconsistencies in the figures and 2005. Necessarily, LBP, through its legal department, elevated the case before this Court on September
factors made as bases by LBP in its computation, rendered judgment as follows: 9, 2005 via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, contending, among others, that it did not
commit deliberate forum shopping for what it filed with the Office of the PARAD was a motion to quash,
which is not an initiatory pleading; and the decision of the PARAD cannot be executed due to the
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
pending petition for fixing of just compensation with the SAC.

Ordering the Land Bank of the Philippines to pay landowner-protestant RAYMUNDA MARTINEZ for her
On September 14, 2005, we issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) restraining the appellate court
property covered and embraced by TCT No. T-712 with an area of 62.5369 hectares, more or less, which
and the DAR adjudicators from implementing the November 11, 2003 and the February 23, 2004
the Department of Agrarian Reform intends to acquire, the total amount of TWELVE MILLION ONE
HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY TWO and 50/100 Pesos resolutions.
(Php12,179,492.50), in the manner provided for by law.
For her part, respondent contends that petitioner has committed forum-shopping when it filed a
certiorari petition without first awaiting the resolution by the Office of the PARAD of the motion to
SO ORDERED.
quash; and that petitioner has lost its standing to sue considering that it is being represented by its
lawyers and not the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). [Citations omitted.]4
A petition for the fixing of just compensation docketed as Agrarian Case No. 696 was then filed by LBPs
counsel before the Special Agrarian Court (SAC), the Regional Trial Court of Odiongan, Romblon, Branch
Three primordial issues were then resolved by the Court in the said decision(1) whether or not
82. After filing her answer to the said petition, respondent, contending that the orders, rulings and
petitioner could file its appeal solely through its legal department; (2) whether or not petitioner
decisions of the DARAB become final after the lapse of 15 days from their receipt, moved for the
committed forum shopping; and (3) whether or not the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)
dismissal of the petition for being filed out of time. Petitioner opposed the motion.
gravely abused his discretion when he issued a writ of execution despite the pendency of LBPs petition
for fixing of just compensation with the Special Agrarian Court (SAC).
Meanwhile, respondent, still asserting the finality of PARAD Soritas decision, filed before the Office of
the PARAD a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, which was eventually granted on November
The Court went on to rule that the petition for review on certiorari could not be filed without the Office
11, 2003. Ascertaining that the petition before the SAC was filed by LBP 26 days after it received a copy
of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) entering its appearance as the principal legal counsel of
of PARAD Soritas decision, the Office of the PARAD denied LBPs motion for reconsideration and ordered
the bank or without the OGCC giving its conformity to the LBP Legal Departments filing of the petition.
The Court also found petitioner to have forum-shopped when it moved to quash the PARAD resolutions This ruling, however, as correctly pointed out by petitioner, runs counter to the Courts recent decision in
and at the same time petitioned for their annulment via certiorari under Rule 65. Most importantly, the Suntay [the motions for reconsideration in Suntay were denied with finality in the January 30, 2008
Court ruled that petitioner was not entitled to the issuance of a writ of certiorari by the appellate court Resolution of the Court10], in which the Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for
because the Office of the PARAD did not gravely abuse its discretion when it undertook to execute the determination of just compensation on the ground that it was filed out of time. The Court in that case
September 4, 2002 decision on land valuation. The said adjudicators decision attained finality after the stressed that the petition was not an appeal from the adjudicators final decision but an original action
lapse of the 15-day period stated in Rule XIII, Section 11 of the Department of Agrarian Reform for the determination of just compensation.
Adjudication Board (DARAB) Rules of Procedure.
We, however, promulgated our decision in this case ahead of Suntay. To reiterate, this case was decided
Dissatisfied with our ruling, petitioner successively filed, as aforesaid, the September 20, 2007 Motion for on August 14, 2007, while Suntay was decided two months later, or on October 11, 2007. Suntay should
Reconsideration5 and the November 8, 2007 Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.6 In both motions, have then remained consistent with our ruling, and with the doctrines enunciated in Philippine Veterans
petitioner contends that its lawyers are authorized to appear in the instant case for they have been Bank and in Lubrica, especially considering that Lubrica was the representative of Suntay in the Suntay
issued a letter of authority by the OGCC on April 17, 2006; that it did not commit deliberate forum case.
shopping; that the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) gravely abused his discretion in
issuing the writ of execution to implement his decision; that respondents defense of res judicata or the
The Court notes that the Suntay ruling is based on Republic of the Philippines v. Court of
alleged finality of the PARADs decision was never pleaded in her answer, hence, was already deemed
Appeals,11 decided in 1996 also through the pen of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza. In that case, the Court
waived; that the PARAD had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution due to the pending petition for
emphasized that the jurisdiction of the SAC is original and exclusive, not appellate. Republic, however,
determination of just compensation with the SAC; and that the Courts August 14, 2007 Decision in this
was decided at a time when Rule XIII, Section 11 was not yet present in the DARAB Rules. Further,
case is contrary to its October 11, 2007 Decision in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay, G.R. No.
Republic did not discuss whether the petition filed therein for the fixing of just compensation was filed
157903 on the issue of whether the petition for determination of just compensation was filed out of
out of time or not. The Court merely decided the issue of whether cases involving just compensation
time. should first be appealed to the DARAB before the landowner can resort to the SAC under Section 57 of
R.A. No. 6657.
Respondent, in her January 24, 2008 Comment,7 counters, among others, that the filing of the said
motions is only dilatory considering that the arguments raised therein have already been answered by
To resolve the conflict in the rulings of the Court, we now declare herein, for the guidance of the bench
the Court in the decision sought to be reconsidered.
and the bar, that the better rule is that stated in Philippine Veterans Bank, reiterated in Lubrica and in
the August 14, 2007 Decision in this case. Thus, while a petition for the fixing of just compensation with
The Court agrees with respondents contention and denies petitioners motions. the SAC is not an appeal from the agrarian reform adjudicators decision but an original action, the same
has to be filed within the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules; otherwise, the adjudicators decision
will attain finality. This rule is not only in accord with law and settled jurisprudence but also with the
Indeed, except for the alleged conflict of the August 14, 2007 Decision with that promulgated on October
principles of justice and equity. Verily, a belated petition before the SAC, e.g., one filed a month, or a
11, 2007 in G.R. No. 157903 [LBP v. Suntay], the grounds raised by petitioner in the motions are identical
year, or even a decade after the land valuation of the DAR adjudicator, must not leave the dispossessed
to those stated in its previous pleadings. And these have already been considered and sufficiently passed
landowner in a state of uncertainty as to the true value of his property.
upon by the Court in the August 14, 2007 Decision.

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISQUISITIONS, the Court DENIES WITH FINALITY petitioners
On the supposedly conflicting pronouncements in the cited decisions, the Court reiterates its ruling in
September 20, 2007 Motion for Reconsideration and the November 8, 2007 Supplemental Motion for
this case that the agrarian reform adjudicators decision on land valuation attains finality after the lapse
Reconsideration.
of the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules. The petition for the fixing of just compensation should
therefore, following the law and settled jurisprudence, be filed with the SAC within the said period. This
conclusion, as already explained in the assailed decision, is based on the doctrines laid down in Philippine
Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals8 and Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica.9

In Philippine Veterans Bank, decided in 2000 through the pen of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, the Court
ruled that the trial court correctly dismissed the petition for the fixing of just compensation because it

was filed beyond the 15-day period provided in the DARAB Rules.

In Lubrica, decided in 2005 through the pen of Justice Dante O. Tinga, the Court, citing Philippine
Veterans Bank, ruled that the adjudicators decision had already attained finality because LBP filed the
petition for just compensation beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Incidentally, Josefina Lubrica is
the assignee of Federico Suntay whose property is the subject of the aforementioned October 11, 2007

Decision in LBP v. Suntay.

1avvphi1

Following settled doctrine, we ruled in this case that the PARADs decision had already attained finality
because of LBPs failure to file the petition for the fixing of just compensation within the 15-day period.


















































 SECOND DIVISION
Respondent Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz are Anicia Cruz-Papa, Resurreccion Cruz-Pagcaliwagan,

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 175175 Antonio D. Cruz, Lourdes Cruz-Doma, Lorna Cruz-Felipe, Mamerto D. Cruz, Eduardo D. Cruz and Victoria
Petitioner,
Cruz-Dumlao. Eleuterio Cruz is the registered owner of an unirrigated riceland situated in Lakambini, Tuao,
Present:
Cagayan per Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-368. Of the total 13.7320 hectares of respondents
QUISUMBING, J.,
- versus - Chairperson, landholding, an area of 13.5550 hectares was placed by the government under the coverage of the
CARPIO MORALES, [6]
TINGA, operation land transfer program under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27.
VELASCO, JR., and
BRION, JJ.,
HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO CRUZ, Petitioner pegged the value of the acquired landholding at P106,935.76 based on the guidelines
Respondents. [7] [8]
Promulgated: set forth under P.D. No. 27 and Executive Order (E.O.) No. 228. Respondents rejected petitioners

September 29, 2008 valuation and instituted an action for a summary proceeding for the preliminary determination of just

x -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x compensation before the PARAD. On 23 November 1999, the PARAD rendered a decision fixing the just
[9]
compensation in the amount of P80,000.00 per hectare. Petitioner sought reconsideration but was
D E C I S I O N
unsuccessful.
TINGA, J.:

Thus, on 28 January 2000, petitioner filed a petition for the determination of just compensation

[10]
[1]
before the RTC of Tuguegarao City. The petition was docketed as Agrarian Case No. 0058 and
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing
[11]
[2] [3]
entitled Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz, represented by Lorna Cruz, et al.
the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 93207. The CA decision

affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, Branch 1 sitting as a Special Petitioners evidence consisted of the testimonies of Benedicta Simon, head of the LBP

Agrarian Court (SAC), which approved and ordered the payment of the amount of just compensation fixed Evaluation Division of Land Owners Compensation Department, and Francisco de la Cruz, Chief, PARAD,
[4]
by the Cagayan Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in favor of herein respondents. The CA Cagayan. Simon testified that as the officer charged with reviewing claims under the agrarian reform
[5]
resolution denied petitioners motion for reconsideration of the decision. program, she computed the valuation of respondents landholdings based on the formula set forth in P.D.

No. 27, E.O. No. 228 and Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 13, series of 1994 and arrived at the value
The following factual antecedents are matters of record.
of P106,935.76. As the PARAD Chief tasked to oversee the implementation of the agrarian reform program,

Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) is a government banking institution designated De la Cruz testified that the subject landholding was tenanted and covered by production agreements

under Section 64 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6654 as the financial intermediary of the agrarian reform between the owner and various tenants.
[12]
Petitioner offered in evidence Exhibit H to prove that the

program of the government. subject landholding had an average production of 25 and 40 cavans per hectare annually.

 For their part, respondents presented Lorna Cruz Felipe, who testified that as one of the heirs the appellate court affirmed the SAC decision fixing just compensation at P80,000.00 per hectare.
[22]
of Eleuterio Cruz, she knew that the subject landholding was planted with rice two or three times a year Petitioner sought consideration but was denied in the assailed Resolution dated 30 October 2006.

and had a production capacity of 80 to 100 cavans per hectare. Felipe also claimed that the current market
Hence, the instant petition, arguing that the formula set forth in P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 should
[13]
value of the property was between P150,000.00 to P200,000.00 per hectare.
be applied in fixing just compensation since respondents landholding was acquired under P.D. No. 27.
[23] [24]
On 07 December 2005, the RTC, sitting as an Special Agrarian Court (SAC), rendered a decision, Citing Section 2 of E.O. No. 228 and LBP v. Hon. David C. Naval, petitioner posits that the correct

the dispositive portion of which reads formula in determining the just compensation should be Land Value = (2.5 x AGP x P35) x A, where AGP is

the Average Gross Production per hectare; P35.00 is the Government Support Price for palay in 1972; and
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing ratiocination, judgment is hereby
rendered fixing the amount of P80,000.00 to be the just compensation of the land subject A is the total land area.
of this case with an area of 13.7320 hectares situated at Lakambini, Tuao, Cagayan and
covered under TCT No. T-368 and ordering Land Bank of the Philippines to pay respondent
represented by Lorna Cruz-Felipe the amount of P1,098,560.00 in the manner provided Petitioner insists that the values in E.O. No. 228 are applicable to lands acquired under P.D. No.
by R.A. No. 6657 by way of full payment of the said just compensation.

27 in cognizance of the well-settled rule that just compensation is the value of the property at the time of
SO DECIDED.[14]
the taking on 21 October 1972, when the ownership of the subject property was transferred from the

landowner to the farmers-beneficiaries and when the former was effectively deprived of dominion and
The SAC held that the value of P80,000.00 per hectare fixed by the PARAD should be accorded
[15] possession over said land.
weight and probative value and that the SAC is guided by the various factors enumerated in Section 17 of

R.A. No. 6657 in determining just compensation. It disregarded respondents claim that the valuation
The petition lacks merit.

should be based on the current market value of the landholding since no evidence was adduced in support
[25]
The Court laid down in Paris v. Alfeche the applicability of P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 in
of the claim. The SAC also did not accept petitioners valuation as it was based on P.D. No. 27, in which just
[16] relation to R.A. No. 6657 in the matter of the payment of just compensation. There the Court explained
compensation was determined at the time of the taking of the property.

that while under P.D. No. 27 tenant farmers are already deemed owners of the land they till, they are still
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated 26
required to pay the cost of the land before the title is transferred to them and that pending the payment
[17]
January 2006, prompting petitioner to elevate the matter to the CA. In its petition for
of just compensation, actual title to the tenanted land remains with the landowner.
[18]
review, petitioner questioned the total land area as well as the amount of just compensation adjudged
[19] In Paris, the application of the process of agrarian reform was still incomplete thus, the Court
by the SAC.

held therein that with the passage of R.A. No. 6657 before its completion, the process should now be
On 17 August 2006, the CA rendered the assailed decision partly granting petitioners [26]
completed under R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 applying only suppletorily.
[20]
appeal. The appellate court ruled that the total area covered by the agrarian reform program as was

duly established before the PARAD and expressly stated in the pre-trial order was only 13.5550 hectares
[21]
and not 13.7320 hectares as was stated in the dispositive portion of the decision of the SAC. However,
 [27] [31]
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, the Court explained why the guidelines under Likewise, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Sps. Banal, the Court ruled that the applicable

P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 are no longer applicable to the delayed payment of lands acquired under P.D. formula in fixing just compensation is DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 1992, as amended by DAR A.O. No. 11,

No. 27, to wit: series of 1994, then the governing regulation applicable to compulsory acquisition of lands, in recognition

It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on of the DARs rule-making power to carry out the object of R.A. No. 6657. Because the trial court therein
the guideline provided by PD No. 27 and EO 228 considering the DARs failure to determine
the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation should based its valuation upon a different formula and did not conduct any hearing for the reception of evidence,
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 Court ordered a remand of the case to the SAC for trial on the merits.
the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real,
substantial, full and ample.[28]
The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation

[32]
has been reiterated recently in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim, where the Court also ordered the
The decisive backdrop of the instant case coincides with that in Paris, that is, the amount of just
remand of the case to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with DAR
compensation due to respondents had not yet been settled by the time R.A. No. 6657 became effective.
A.O. No. 6, series of 1992, as amended.

Following the aforementioned pronouncement in Paris, the fixing of just compensation should therefore
A perusal of the PARADs Decision dated 23 November 1999, which mandated payment of just
be based on the parameters set out in R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 having
compensation in the amount of P80,000.00 per hectare, reveals that the PARAD did not adhere to the
only suppletory effect.

formula prescribed in any of the aforementioned regulations issued by the DAR or was at least silent on
Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 states:
the applicability of the aforementioned DAR regulations to the question of just compensation. The PARAD

decision also did not refer to any evidence in support of its finding.
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 The SAC, meanwhile, referred to DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 1992, as amended, as the controlling
economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by government [33]
to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any guideline in fixing just compensation. Pertinently, to obtain the land value, the formula under said
government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors
to determine its valuation. regulation requires that the values for the Capitalized Net Income, Comparable Sales and Market Value

based on the tax declaration must be shown. Moreover, said formula has been superseded by DAR A.O.

[29]
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, the Court ruled that the factors enumerated under No. 05, series of 1998, which also requires values for Capitalized Net Income, Comparable Sales and Market

Section 17, R.A. No. 6657 had already been translated into a basic formula by the Department of Agrarian Value, the same parameters laid down in the prior regulation.

Reform (DAR) pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. Thus, the Court held
Stating that no evidence was presented by respondents on the aforementioned parameters,
[30]
in Celada that the formula outlined in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998 should be applied in computing
the SAC ruled that it was constrained to adopt the finding of the PARAD, which fixed the value of the land
just compensation.
at P80,000.00 per hectare. On appeal, the CA adopted the same finding.


The general rule is that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA,

are binding and conclusive on the Court. However, the rule admits of exceptions, as when the factual

findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures or when the findings are

[34]
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based.


A perusal of the PARAD decision, which was adopted by both the SAC and the CA, shows that

its valuation of P80,000.00 per hectare is sorely lacking in any evidentiary or legal basis. While the Court

wants to fix just compensation due to respondents if only to write finis to the controversy, the evidence

on record is not sufficient for the Court to do so in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998.


WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED and the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 93207 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Agrarian Case

No. 0058 is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, which is directed

to determine with dispatch the just compensation due respondents strictly in accordance with DAR A.O.

No. 5, series of 1998.



























 FIRST DIVISION [4]
While the DARAB case was pending, respondent filed, on February 10, 2000, a petition for judicial

determination of just compensation against LBP, the DAR and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 164876
Petitioner, (MARO) of Carmen, Bohol, before the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City. The same was docketed as
Present:
Panganiban, C.J. (Chairman), Civil Case No. 6462 and raffled to Branch 3, the designated Special Agrarian Court (SAC). Respondent
- versus - Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez, alleged that the current market value of her land is at least P150,000.00 per hectare based on the following
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ. factors:
LEONILA P. CELADA,
Respondent. Promulgated:
January 23, 2006 14.1. The land in question has been mortgaged to the defunct Rural Bank of San
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x Miguel (Bohol), Inc., for P1,220,000.00 on July 23, 1998 since it was appraised at
P15.00 per square meter;

DECISION 14.2. Agricultural lands in said barangay are priced ranging from P140,000.00 to
P150,000.00 per hectare and current land transactions reveal said price range;

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: 14.3. The land in question is titled or registered property, cultivated and fully
developed with rice[5] and corn occupying the greater portion thereof;


14.4. The topography of the land, its soil condition, climate and productivity of
Respondent Leonila P. Celada owns 22.3167 hectares of agricultural land situated in Calatrava, Carmen,
surrounding lots justify the just compensation requested or asked for;
[1]
Bohol registered under TCT No. 16436, of which 14.1939 hectares was identified in 1998 by the
14.5. Even the class and base unit market value for agricultural lands in Bohol is
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as suitable for compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive about thirty (30) times higher than the price offered per hectare by DAR/LBP.[6]

Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The matter was then indorsed to petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines
[7]
(LBP) for field investigation and land valuation. On April 27, 2000, LBP filed its Answer raising non-exhaustion of administrative remedies as well as

forum-shopping as affirmative defense. According to petitioner, respondent must first await the outcome

In due course, LBP valued respondents land at P2.1105517 per square meter for an aggregate value of of the DARAB case before taking any judicial recourse; that its valuation was arrived at by applying the
[2]
P299,569.61. The DAR offered the same amount to respondent as just compensation, but it was rejected. formula prescribed by law whereas respondents was based only on the current value of like properties.

Nonetheless, on August 27, 1999, LBP deposited the said sum in cash and bonds in the name of
[3] [8]
respondent. The DAR and the MARO likewise filed an Answer averring that the determination of just compensation

rests exclusively with the LBP. Thus, they are not liable to respondent and are merely nominal parties in

Pursuant to Section 16(d) of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of the case.

1988, the matter was referred to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), Region VII-Cebu City, for summary
[9]
administrative hearing on determination of just compensation. The case was docketed as DARAB Case No. Meanwhile, the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) issued an Order dated April 12, 2000 affirming

VII-4767-B-990. the valuation made by LBP. Respondent failed to appear in the DARAB case despite due notice.

On June 4, 2001, the SAC issued an order resolving petitioners affirmative defense in this wise:
 THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN X X X RIGIDLY OR STRICTLY APPLYING
PROCEDURAL LAW AT THE EXPENSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND THE RIGHT TO
WHEREFORE, the Affirmative Defense of x x x Land Bank is hereby denied. Besides, APPEAL.
in the mind of the court, the recourse to the DARAB is x x x of no moment since it is
only conciliatory to the parties. B
THE SAC A QUO ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITION
Upon agreement of the parties, the pre-trial is reset to June 11, 2001 at 9:00 in the FOR DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION WHILE ADMINISTRATIVE
morning. PROCEEDINGS IS ON-GOING BEFORE THE DARAB, REGION VII, CEBU CITY.

SO ORDERED.[10] C
THE SAC A QUO ERRED IN FIXING THE JUST COMPENSATION OF THE
LAND BASED NOT ON ITS ACTUAL LAND USE BUT ON THE VALUATION OF
[11] NEIGHBORING LANDS.
Thereafter, a pre-trial conference was conducted and trial on the merits ensued. On March 1, 2003, the

SAC rendered judgment as follows: D
THE SAC A QUO ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES AND INCIDENTAL
[15]
EXPENSES X X X.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby fixes the compensation
of the land of petitioner at P2.50 per square meter or a total of P354,847.50 for the
portion of 14.1939 hectares subject of compulsory acquisition under the CARP
On the first assigned error, petitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals should have liberally
which it believes just, fair and equitable under the present circumstances and which
shall earn legal interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the time of its construed the rules of procedure and not dismissed its appeal on technical grounds.
taking by the DAR. Furthermore, respondent Land Bank is hereby ordered to
indemnify petitioner the amount of P10,000.00 for attorneys fee and incidental
expenses of P5,000.00 and costs.
We agree with petitioner.
SO ORDERED.[12]


The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners appeal on three technical grounds, namely: (a) lack
LBP elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals which, however, dismissed the appeal outright on the
of affidavit of service; (b) failure of counsel to indicate his Roll of Attorneys number; and (c) failure to
following grounds:
attach material portions of the records. However, the lack of affidavit of service is not deemed fatal where

1. The petition is not accompanied with an affidavit of service, although there is an the petition filed below is accompanied by the original registry receipts showing that the petition and its
explanation that respondent, respondents counsel and Judge Venancio J. Amila [16]
were furnished with copies of the petition by registered mail x x x. annexes were served upon the parties. On the other hand, the failure of counsel to indicate his Roll of

Attorneys number would not affect respondents substantive rights, such that petitioners counsel could
2. Petitioners counsel indicated his IBP and PTR but not his Roll of Attorneys Number
x x x. have been directed to comply with the latter requirement rather than dismiss the petition on purely

3. Copies of (a) PARAD Decision x x x adverted to in the petition which fixed the land technical grounds. As for petitioners failure to attach material portions of the records, we held in Donato
valuation for just compensation at P299,569.11 and (b) petitioners Petition for
[17]
Judicial Determination of Just Compensation filed with the Regional Trial Court of v. Court of Appeals that:
Tagbilaran City, Branch 3, were not attached as annexes, x x x.[13]

[T]he failure of the petitioner to x x x append to his petition copies of the pleadings
[14]
and other material portions of the records as would support the petition, does not
Upon denial of its motion for reconsideration, LBP filed the instant petition under Rule 45 of the Rules justify the outright dismissal of the petition. It must be emphasized that the RIRCA
(Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals) gives the appellate court a certain
of Court, alleging that: leeway to require parties to submit additional documents as may be necessary in
the interest of substantial justice. Under Section 3, paragraph d of Rule 3 of the

RIRCA, the CA may require the parties to complete the annexes as the court deems
A
necessary, and if the petition is given due course, the CA may require the elevation
 of a complete record of the case as provided for under Section 3(d)(5) of Rule 6 of
[24]
the RIRCA x x x.[18] administrative agencies. Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of respondents petition for

An examination of the records and pleadings filed before the Court of Appeals reveals that determination of just compensation.

there was substantial compliance with procedural requirements. Moreover, we have held time and again

that cases should, as much as possible, be determined on the merits after the parties have been given full In the same vein, there is no merit to petitioners contention that respondent failed to exhaust

opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural administrative remedies when she directly filed the petition for determination of just compensation with

imperfection.
[19]
After all, technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily devised the SAC even before the DARAB case could be resolved. The issue is now moot considering that the

to help in the proper and expedient dispensation of justice. In appropriate cases, therefore, the rules may valuation made by petitioner had long been affirmed by the DARAB in its order dated April 12, 2000. As
[25]
be construed liberally in order to meet and advance the cause of substantial justice.
[20]
held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is

inapplicable when the issue is rendered moot and academic, as in the instant case.

While a remand of the case to the appellate court would seem to be in order, we deem it proper

to resolve the case on the merits if only to write finis to the present controversy. With regard to the third assigned error, however, we agree with petitioner that the SAC erred

in setting aside petitioners valuation of respondents land on the sole basis of the higher valuation given

We do not agree with petitioners submission that the SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction over for neighboring properties. In this regard, the SAC held:

respondents petition for determination of just compensation despite the pendency of the administrative
It appears from the evidence of petitioner that the neighboring lands of
[21]
proceedings before the DARAB. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the landowner filed similar classification were paid higher than what was quoted to her land by
respondent Land Bank as the value per square meter to her land was only quoted at
an action for determination of just compensation without waiting for the completion of the DARABs re- P2.1105517 while the others which were of the same classification were paid by
respondent Bank at P2.42 more or less, per square meter referring to the land of
evaluation of the land. The Court nonetheless held therein that the SAC acquired jurisdiction over the Consuelito Borja (Exh. D) and Cesar Borja (Exh. F). Furthermore, the land of
petitioner was allegedly mortgaged for a loan of P1,200,000.00 before the Rural
action for the following reason:
Bank of San Miguel, Bohol and that it was purchased by her from a certain Felipe
Dungog for P450,000.00 although no documents therefor were shown to support
It is clear from Sec. 57 that the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has original her claim. Nevertheless, the Court finds a patent disparity in the price quotations by
and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just respondent Land Bank for the land of petitioner and that of the other landowners
compensation to landowners. This original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC brought under CARP which could be caused by deficient or erroneous references
would be undermined if the DAR would vest in administrative officials original due to the petitioners indifference and stubborn attitude in not cooperating with
jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court for the respondent bank in submitting the data needed for the evaluation of the property.
review of administrative decision. Thus, although the new rules speak of directly x x x At any rate, the price quotation by respondent Land Bank on the land of the
appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, petitioner is low more so that it was done some four years ago, particularly, on June
it is clear from Sec. 57 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine such 22, 1998 (Exh. 1) and the same has become irrelevant in the course of time due to
cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators and the devaluation of the peso brought about by our staggering economy.[26]
to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate jurisdiction would be

contrary to Sec. 57 and therefore would be void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC by
private respondent is valid.[22] As can be gleaned from above ruling, the SAC based its valuation solely on the observation that
there was a patent disparity between the price given to respondent and the other landowners. We note
It would be well to emphasize that the taking of property under RA No. 6657 is an exercise of the power that it did not apply the DAR valuation formula since according to the SAC, it is Section 17 of RA No. 6657
[23]
of eminent domain by the State. The valuation of property or determination of just compensation in that should be the principal basis of computation as it is the law governing the matter.
[27]
The SAC further
eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the courts and not with held that said Section 17 cannot be superseded by any administrative order of a government

[28]
agency, thereby implying that the valuation formula under DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
[29]

1998 (DAR AO No. 5, s. of 1998), is invalid and of no effect. Where: LV = Land Value
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
While SAC is required to consider the acquisition cost of the land, the current value of like
CS = Comparable Sales
properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declaration and MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration

the assessments made by the government assessors
[30]
to determine just compensation, it is equally true The above formula shall be used if all three factors are present, relevant, and
applicable.
that these factors have been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power
A1. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, the formula
[31]
under Section 49 of RA No. 6657. As the government agency principally tasked to implement the shall be:

agrarian reform program, it is the DARs duty to issue rules and regulations to carry out the object of the LV = (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)

law. DAR AO No. 5, s. of 1998 precisely filled in the details of Section 17, RA No. 6657 by providing a basic A2. When the CNI factor is not present, and CS and MV are applicable, the formula
shall be:
formula by which the factors mentioned therein may be taken into account. The SAC was at no liberty to

disregard the formula which was devised to implement the said provision. LV = (CS x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)

A3. When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is applicable, the
formula shall be:
It is elementary that rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret the law
LV = MV x 2
which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great
[32] [33] In no case shall the value of idle land using the formula MV x 2 exceed the lowest
respect. Administrative issuances partake of the nature of a statute and have in their favor a value of land within the same estate under consideration or within the same
[34] barangay or municipality (in that order) approved by LBP within one (1) year from
presumption of legality. As such, courts cannot ignore administrative issuances especially when, as in
receipt of claimfolder.
this case, its validity was not put in issue. Unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have
Accordingly, petitioner applied the formula under A1 above since the comparable sales factor
no option but to apply the same.
(CS factor) was not present. As observed by the SAC itself, respondent refused to cooperate with the local

valuation office of petitioner and did not provide the necessary data to arrive at a proper CS factor. DAR
Thus, Section 17 of RA No. 6657 states:
AO No. 5, s. of 1998 defines CS factor as follows:


SEC. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just compensation, the
C. CS shall refer to any one or the average of all the applicable sub-factors, namely
cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual
ST, AC and MVM:
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
Where: ST = Peso Value of Sales Transactions as defined under Item C.2
economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the
AC = Acquisition Cost as defined under Item C.3
Government to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured
MVM = Market Value Based on Mortgage as defined under
from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as
Item C.4
additional factors to determine its valuation.

x x x x

As stated earlier, the above provision is implemented through DAR AO No. 5, s. of 1998, which C.2. The criteria in the selection of the comparable sales transaction (ST) shall be as
follows:
provides that:
a. When the required number of STs is not available at the barangay level, additional
STs may be secured from the municipality where the land being offered/covered is
A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by VOS or CA: situated to complete the required three comparable STs. In case there are more STs
 available than what is required at the municipal level, the most recent transactions per Tax Declaration: Corn/Coco 10,053.93 = 1,005.39
shall be considered. The same rule shall apply at the provincial level when no STs
are available at the municipal level. In all cases, the combination of STs sourced from Computed Value per Hectare: Cassava 15,896.38; Corn/Coco 24,919.92
the barangay, municipality and province shall not exceed three transactions.
x x x
b. The land subject of acquisition as well as those subject of comparable sales
transactions should be similar in topography, land use, i.e., planted to the same Value per hectare used: Cassava 15,896.38 x 6.0000 has. = 95,378.28
crop. Furthermore, in case of permanent crops, the subject properties should be Corn/Coco 24,919.92 x 8.1939 has. = 204,191.33
more or less comparable in terms of their stages of productivity and plant density.
Payment due to LO : P299, 569.61
c. The comparable sales transactions should have been executed within the period
January 1, 1985 to June 15, 1988, and registered within the period January 1, 1985,
to September 13, 1988.
The above computation was explained by Antero M. Gablines, Chief of the Claims, Processing,
x x x x
Valuation and Payment Division of the Agrarian Operations Center of the Land Bank, to wit:

C.3. Acquisition Cost (AC) AC shall be deemed relevant when the property subject of
acquisition was acquired through purchase or exchange with another property ATTY. CABANGBANG: (On direct):
within the period January 1, 1985 to June 15, 1988 and registered within the period
January 1, 1985 to September 13, 1988, and the condition of said property is still x x x x
substantially similar from the date of purchase or exchange to the date of FI.
q. What are the items needed for the Land Bank to compute?
x x x x a. In accordance with Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998, the value of the
land should be computed using the capitalized net income plus the
C.4. Market Value Based on Mortgage (MVM) For MVM to be relevant or applicable, market value. We need the gross production of the land and its output
the property subject of acquisition should have been mortgaged as of June 15, 1988 and the net income of the property.
and the condition of the property is still substantially similar up to the date of FI.
MVM shall refer to the latest available appraised value of the property. q. You said gross production. How would you fix the gross production of the
property?

a. In that Administrative Order No. 5, if the owner of the land is cooperative, he is
In the case at bar, while respondent attempted to prove during the hearings before the SAC, required to submit the net income. Without submitting all his sworn
statements, we will get the data from the DA (Agriculture) or from the
comparable sales transactions, the acquisition cost of the property as well as its mortgage value, she failed coconut authorities.

to submit adequate documentary evidence to support the same. Consequently, there was nothing from x x x x

which the CS factor could be determined. q. In this recommended amount which you approved, how did you arrive at this
figure?
a. We used the data from the Philippine (Coconut) Authority and the Agriculture and
the data stated that Cassava production was only 10,000 kilos per
In contrast, petitioner arrived at its valuation by using available factors culled from the
hectare; corn, 2,000 kilos; and coconuts, 15.38 kilos per hectare. The
Department of Agriculture and Philippine Coconut Authority,
[35]
and by computing the same in accordance data stated that in the first cropping of 1986, the price of cassava was
P1.00 per kilo; corn was sold at P7.75 per kilo; and the Philippine Coconut
with the formula provided, thus Authority stated that during that time, the selling price of coconuts was
P8.23 per kilo.

COMPUTATION (Applicable Formula) : LV = 0.90 CNI + 0.10 MV q. After these Production data and selling price, there is here a cost of operation,
what is this?
Comparable Land Transactions (P x x x x ____ ) = P x-x-x a. It is the expenses of the land owner or farmer. From day one of the cultivation
until production. Without the land owners submission of the sworn
Capitalized Net Income: Cassava 16,666.67 x 0.90 = 15,000.00 statement of the income, production and the cost, x x x Administrative
Corn/Coco 26,571.70 = 23,914.53 Order No. 5 states that x x x we will use 20% as the net income, meaning
80% of the production in peso. This is the cost of valuation.
Market Value Cassava 8,963.78 x 0.10 = 896.38
 q. 80 % for what crops?
a. All crops except for coconuts where the cost of expenses is only 20%.

q. Summing all these data, what is the value per hectare of the cassava?
a. The cassava is P15,896.38.


q. How about the corn x x x intercropped with coconuts?
a. P24,919.92.[36]



Under the circumstances, we find the explanation and computation of petitioner to be

sufficient and in accordance with applicable laws. Petitioners valuation must thus be upheld.



Finally, there is no basis for the SACs award of 12% interest per annum in favor of respondent.

Although in some expropriation cases, the Court allowed the imposition of said interest, the same was in

the nature of damages for delay in payment which in effect makes the obligation on the part of the
[37]
government one of forbearance. In this case, there is no delay that would justify the payment of interest

since the just compensation due to respondent has been promptly and validly deposited in her name in

cash and LBP bonds. Neither is there factual or legal justification for the award of attorneys fees and costs

of litigation in favor of respondent.



WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court,

Tagbilaran City, Branch 3 in Civil Case No. 6462 dated March 1, 2003 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new

judgment is entered fixing the just compensation for respondents land at P2.1105517 per square meter or

a total of P299,569.61.