Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gonzales, Aquino & Associates for petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines.
SYLLABUS
DECISION
FRANCISCO, J.:
It has been declared that the duty of the court to protect the weak and the
underprivileged should not be carried out to such an extent as deny justice to the
landowner whenever truth and justice happen to be on his side. 1 As eloquently stated
by Justice Isagani Cruz:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
". . . social justice — or any justice for that matter — is for the deserving, whether he
be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of
reasonable doubt, we are called upon to tilt the balance in favor of the poor, to whom
the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is it
justified to prefer the poor simply because they are poor, or to reject the rich simply
because they are rich, for justice must always be served, for poor and rich alike,
according to the mandate of the law." 2
In this agrarian dispute, it is once more imperative that the aforestated principles be
applied in its resolution.
Separate petitions for review were filed by petitioners Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) (G.R. No. 118745) and Land Bank of the Philippines (G.R. No. 118712)
following the adverse ruling by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 33465.
However, upon motion filed by private respondents, the petitions were ordered
consolidated. 3
Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on October 20,
1994, which granted private respondents’ Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus and
ruled as follows:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
a) DAR Administrative order No. 9, Series of 1990 is declared null and void
insofar as it provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposits in cash or
bonds;
b) Respondent Landbank is ordered to immediately deposit — not merely
‘earmark’, ‘reserve’ or ‘deposit in trust’ — with an accessible bank designated by
respondent DAR in the names of the following petitioners the following amounts in
cash and in government financial instruments — within the parameters of Sec. 18 (1)
of RA 6657:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
P15,914,127.77 AMADCOR;
Likewise, petitioners seek the reversal of the Resolution dated January 18, 1995, 5
denying their motion for reconsideration.
Private respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR
and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL, Republic Act No. 6657).
Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DAR and the Landbank with respect to the
valuation and payment of compensation for their land pursuant to the provisions of
RA 6657, private respondents filed with this Court a Petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction. Private respondents
questioned the validity of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992 6 and
DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990, 7 and sought to compel the DAR to
expedite the pending summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the just
compensation of their properties, and the Landbank to deposit in cash and bonds the
amounts respectively "earmarked", "reserved" and "deposited in trust accounts" for
private respondents, and to allow them to withdraw the same.
Through a Resolution of the Second Division dated February 9, 1994, this Court
referred the petition to respondent Court of Appeals for proper determination and
disposition.
"Petitioner Pedro Yap alleges that ‘(o)n 4 September 1992 the transfer certificates of
title (TCTs) of petitioner Yap were totally cancelled by the Registrar of Deeds of
Leyte and were transferred in the names of farmer beneficiaries collectively, based on
the request of the DAR together with a certification of the Landbank that the sum of
P735,337.77 and P719,869.54 have been earmarked for Landowner Pedro L. Yap for
the parcels of lands covered by TCT Nos. 6282 and 6283 respectively, and is issued in
lieu thereof TC-563 and TC-562, respectively, in the names of listed beneficiaries
(ANNEXES ‘C’ & D’) without notice to petitioner Yap and without complying with
the requirement of Section 16 (e) of RA 6657 to deposit the compensation in cash and
Landbank bonds in an accessible bank.’ (Rollo, p. 6).
"Petitioner Heirs of Emiliano Santiago allege that the heirs of Emiliano F. Santiago
are the owners of a parcel of land located at Laur, NUEVA ECIJA with an area of
18.5615 hectares covered by TCT No. NT-60359 of the registry of Deeds of Nueva
Ecija, registered in the name of the late Emiliano F. Santiago; that in November and
December 1990, without notice to the petitioners, the Landbank required and the
beneficiaries executed Actual tillers Deed of Undertaking (ANNEX ‘B’) to pay rentals
to the Landbank for the use of their farmlots equivalent to at least 25% of the net
harvest; that on 24 October 1991 the DAR Regional Director issued an order directing
the Landbank to pay the landowner directly or through the establishment of a trust
fund in the amount of P135,482.12; that on 24 February 1992, the Landbank reserved
in trust P135,482.12 in the name of Emiliano F. Santiago. (ANNEX ‘E’; Rollo, p. 7);
that the beneficiaries stopped paying rentals to the landowners after they signed the
Actual Tiller’s Deed of Undertaking committing themselves to pay rentals to the
Landbank (Rollo, p. 133).
"The above allegations are not disputed by the respondents except that respondent
Landbank claims 1) that it was respondent DAR, not Landbank which required the
execution of Actual Tillers Deed of Undertaking (ATDU, for brevity); and 2) that
respondent Landbank, although armed with the ATDU, did not collect any amount as
rental from the substituting beneficiaries (Rollo, p. 99).chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Private respondents argued that Administrative Order No. 9. Series of 1990 was issued
without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion because it permits the opening
of trust accounts by the Landbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or bonds in an
accessible bank designated by the DAR, the compensation for the land before it is
taken and the titles are cancelled as provided under Section 16(e) of RA 6657. 9
Private respondents also assail the fact that the DAR and the Landbank merely
"earmarked", "deposited in trust" or "reserved" the compensation in their names as
landowners despite the clear mandate that before taking possession of the property,
the compensation must be deposited in cash or in bonds.
10chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
For its part, petitioner Landbank declared that the issuance of the Certificates of
Deposits was in consonance with Circular Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 of the Land
Registration Authority where the words "reserved/deposited" were also used. 13
On October 20, 1994, the respondent court rendered the assailed decision in favor of
private respondents. 14 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but respondent
court denied the same. 15
Petitioners submit that respondent court erred in (1) declaring as null and void DAR
Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990, insofar as it provides for the opening of
trust accounts in lieu of deposit in cash or in bonds, and (2) in holding that private
respondents are entitled as a matter of right to the immediate and provisional release
of the amounts deposited in trust pending the final resolution of the cases it has filed
for just compensation.
Anent the first assignment of error, petitioners maintain that the word "deposit" as
used in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 referred merely to the act of depositing and in no
way excluded the opening of a trust account as a form of deposit. Thus, in opting for
the opening of a trust account as the acceptable form of deposit through
Administrative Circular No. 9, petitioner DAR did not commit any grave abuse of
discretion since it merely exercised its power to promulgate rules and regulations in
implementing the declared policies of RA 6657.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of
rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank
designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance
with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request
the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name
of the Republic of the Philippines . . ." (Emphasis supplied)
It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP
bonds." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in
any other form. If it were the intention to include a "trust account" among the valid
modes of deposit, that should have been made express, or at least, qualifying words
ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly deduced that a "trust account" is
allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an
expanded construction of the term "deposit" .
In the present suit, the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of its power to enact rules
and regulations when it issued Administrative Circular No. 9. There is no basis in
allowing the opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as compensation for
his property because, as heretofore discussed, Section 16(e) of RA 6657 is very
specific that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds." In the same
vein, petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 because these
implementing regulations cannot outweigh the clear provision of the law. Respondent
court therefore did not commit any error in striking down Administrative Circular No.
9 for being null and void.
Proceeding to the crucial issue of whether or not private respondents are entitled to
withdraw the amounts deposited in trust in their behalf pending the final resolution of
the cases involving the final valuation of their properties, petitioners assert the
negative.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The contention is premised on the alleged distinction between the deposit of
compensation under Section 16(e) of RA 6657 and payment of final compensation as
provided under Section 18 21 of the same law. According to petitioners, the right of
the landowner to withdraw the amount deposited in his behalf pertains only to the
final valuation as agreed upon by the landowner, the DAR and the LBP or that
adjudged by the court. It has no reference to amount deposited in the trust account
pursuant to Section 16(e) in case of rejection by the landowner because the latter
amount is only provisional and intended merely to secure possession of the property
pending final valuation. To further bolster the contention petitioners cite the following
pronouncements in the case of "Association of Small Landowners in the Phil. Inc. v.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform." 22
"The last major challenge to CARP is that the landowner is divested of his property
even before actual payment to him in full of just compensation, in contravention of a
well-accepted principle of eminent domain.
x x x
"The CARP Law, for its part conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of
the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment
or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an
accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner. No outright change
of ownership is contemplated either.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
x x x
"Hence the argument that the assailed measures violate due process by arbitrarily
transferring title before the land is fully paid for must also be rejected."cralaw
virtua1aw library
Notably, however, the aforecited case was used by respondent court in discarding
petitioners’ assertion as it found that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
We agree with the observations of respondent court. The ruling in the "Association"
case merely recognized the extraordinary nature of the expropriation to be undertaken
under RA 6657 thereby allowing a deviation from the traditional mode of payment of
compensation and recognized payment other than in cash. It did not, however,
dispense with the settled rule that there must be full payment of just compensation
before the title to the expropriated property is transferred.
The attempt to make a distinction between the deposit of compensation under Section
16(e) of RA 6657 and determination of just compensation under Section 18 is
unacceptable. To withhold the right of the landowners to appropriate the amounts
already deposited in their behalf as compensation for their properties simply because
they rejected the DAR’s valuation, and notwithstanding that they have already been
deprived of the possession and use of such properties, is an oppressive exercise of
eminent domain. The irresistible expropriation of private respondents’ properties was
painful enough for them. But petitioner DAR rubbed it in all the more by withholding
that which rightfully belongs to private respondents in exchange for the taking, under
an authority (the "Association" case) that is, however, misplaced. This is misery twice
bestowed on private respondents, which the Court must rectify.
". . . within the context of the State’s inherent power of eminent domain, just
compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the
owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its
taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered ‘just’ for the
property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of
his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the
amount necessary to cope with his loss." 24 (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for
lack of merit and the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in
toto.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SO ORDERED.