G.R. No. 169008 Case Digest

G.R. No. 169008, July 31, 2008

Landbank of the Philippines

vs Raymunda Martinez

Ponente: Nachura

Facts:

The land owned by Martinez was compulsory acquired by DAR for the purpose of CARP, of which the LBP offered P1,955,485.60 as just compensation. Convinced that the amount was just and confiscatory, Martinez rejected it. Thus, PARAD conducted a summary administrative proceedings for the preliminary determination of the just compensation.

PARAD marked some inconsistencies in the figures and factors used by LBP in its computation, so they rendered an amount of P12,179,492.50 as just compensation.

LBP however, filed at the RTC-Romblon that the ruling of the DARAB on the just compensation has become final after the lapse of 15 days. Martinez opposed the motion. Later on, LBP instituted a petition for certiorari against PARAD, assailing that PARAD gravely abuse its discretion when it issued the order for the 12m just compensation despite the pending petition in the RTC.  CA, finding LBP guilty of forum-shopping dismissed the petition, Hence, this petition.

Issue:

(1) whether or not petitioner could file its appeal solely through its legal department; (2) whether or not petitioner committed forum shopping; and (3) whether or not the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) gravely abused his discretion when he issued a writ of execution despite the pendency of LBP’s petition for fixing of just compensation with the Special Agrarian Court (SAC).

Ruling:

The Court went on to rule that the petition for review on certiorari could not be filed without the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) entering its appearance as the principal legal counsel of the bank or without the OGCC giving its conformity to the LBP Legal Department’s filing of the petition. The Court also found petitioner to have forum-shopped when it moved to quash the PARAD resolutions and at the same time petitioned for their annulment via certiorari under Rule 65. Most importantly, the Court ruled that petitioner was not entitled to the issuance of a writ of certiorari by the appellate court because the Office of the PARAD did not gravely abuse its discretion when it undertook to execute the September 4, 2002 decision on land valuation. The said adjudicator’s decision attained finality after the lapse of the 15-day period stated in Rule XIII, Section 11 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Rules of Procedure.

On the supposedly conflicting pronouncements in the cited decisions, the Court reiterates its ruling in this case that the agrarian reform adjudicator’s decision on land valuation attains finality after the lapse 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. Following settled doctrine, we ruled in this case that the PARAD’s decision had already attained finality because of LBP’s failure to file the petition for the fixing of just compensation within the 15-day period.

G.R. No. 132767 Case Digest

G.R. No. 132767, January 18, 2000

Philippine Veterans Bank

vs Court of Appeals, DAR, DARAB-Davao and Landbank of the Philippines

Ponente: Mendoza

Facts:

PVB owned 4 parcels of land in Tagum, Davao, and these lands were taken by the DAR for distribution to landless farmers pursuant to CARP. Dissatisfied with the valuation of the land made by LBP and DARAB, PVB filed a petition for a determination of just compensation for the properties. The petition was dismissed on the ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary period.

CA affirmed this decision. CA added that the jurisdiction over the land valuation is lodged in the DARAB. PVB filed for reconsideration but was denied too.

Issue:

Whether the jurisdiction over the fixing of just compensation is under DARAB.

Ruling:

There is nothing contradictory between the "agrarian reform matters" under the jurisdiction of DAR and the "all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform" [which includes just compensation] under the jurisdiction of the RTC. The first is an administrative proceeding while the second is judicial.

CA is affirmed.

G.R. No. 109992 Case Digest

G.R. No. 109992, March 7, 2000

Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Santos

vs Court of Appeals

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago

Facts:

A parcel of land in Plaridel, Bulacan was levied on execution by the MTC of Bulacan in 1989. The land was sold at public auction in 1990 with Santos, [now substituted by his heirs] as the sole bidder.

Santos registered the deed of sale in bulacan in October 1990 after Exequiel Garcia failed to exercise his right of redemption within the reglementary period.

In 1992, Garcia filed a petition for injunction and damages with preliminary injunction with the DARAB, praying that petitioner be enjoined from preventing private respondent from gathering the mango fruits. DARAB issued an order allowing the gathering of the mango fruits and directing that the proceeds thereof be deposited with the DARAB.

Subsequently, Garcia also filed to redeem his land. This petition was dismissed. Meanwhile, Pantaleon Antonio filed a motion to intervene with the DARAB claiming that he is affected in his rights over the mango trees which he tended for that season. DARAB suspended the claim of Antonio pending the resolution of the ownership issue.

Later, Antonio filed a motion to withdraw intervenors deposited share which was granted by DARAB, also recognizing Antonio as the duly constituted agricultural tenant of the land. This order was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

(1)Whether the jurisdiction is under PARAD since there is an issue of ownership.

(2)Whether CA erred in allowing the release of the share without bond.

Ruling:

Petition is with merit.

(1) Agrarian dispute is under the jurisdiction of DARAB, however in the case, there is no agrarian dispute since the parties are contending as to the ownership of the land. And the parties have no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations. So DARAB has no jurisdiction. The issue of the case is ownership which is under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

(2) As to the claim of Antonio, DARAB has no jurisdiction also because the issue of who can harvest the mangoes is an ancillary to the main petition for injunction, so it is dependent on the main case.

CA's decision was reversed and set aside.   

G.R. No. 165501 Case Digest

G.R. No. 165501, March 28, 2006

Spouses Jesus and Evangeline Pasco

vs Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corp.

Ponente: Carpio-Morales

Facts:

Pison-Arceo is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Negros Occidental, of which houses were constructed and occupied by its workers. Spouses Pasco, along with other workers have ceased to be employed in 1987, so Pison-Arceo asked them to vacate the house they occupy. Spouses refused to vacate, hence Pison-Arceo filed an unlawful detainer case in Talisay City.

In their answer, the workers claimed that they built the house they occupied at their own expense and their stay was upon the tolerance of the corporation. Pison-Arceo claimed that the houses built by the workers were destroyed by a typhoon, forcing them to built it at their expense. Pison demands for them to vacate as they had paid rental thru salary/wage deductions. The workers, on the other hand, say that their refusal to vacate is justified for they are owners and actual possessors.

MTC Talisay favored the corporation, saying that the corporation built the [original] houses for their workers without requiring for payment of rentals, but with an implied promise that the same be vacated upon cessation from work.

After the promulgation of the judgment, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Talisay sent a notice of coverage and filed investigation advising the corporation that the land is now covered under RA 6657. In the meantime, the workers have appealed the decision in RTC Bacolod.

The workers argued that the land is covered by CARL and that they are qualified beneficiaries and that it is material to the determination whether they are planters, sowers or builders in bad faith. Ultimately saying that MTCC has no jurisdiction. RTC Bacolod affirmed MTCC Talisay.

Workers filed a petition before the appellate court, attaching the copy of the notice of coverage and field investigation. In the mean time, MARO of Talisay declared Jesus Pasco as potential beneficiary of the land.

CA denied the petition of the workers, saying that the material averments in the petition were not raised in the trial court, making their contention untenable. MTCC Talisay does not lose jurisdiction over the case. Hence, this petition.

Issues:

1. Whether or not one who has been identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as potential agrarian reform beneficiary may be ejected from the land where he is identified as such, by the landowner, who has already been notified by the DAR of the coverage of his land by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government.

2. Whether or not the foregoing issue involves an issue affecting the jurisdiction of the court over the nature of the action or it involves primary jurisdiction.

3. Whether or not the matters involving jurisdiction of the court over the nature of the action could be raised for the first time on appeal.

Ruling:

Although the issue of jurisdiction may be considered by the reviewing court at anytime, the mere issuance of notice of coverage does not automatically make the ejectment case an agrarian dispute. The issuance of notice of coverage is a mere preliminary step for the States acquisition of the land and does not automatically vests title or ownership of the land to the government.

Purpose of notice of coverage and field investigation is to identify the landholding and determine its suitability for agriculture and its productivity.

The owner retains its right to eject unlawful possessors of his land. The potentiality of the beneficiary does not prevent the owner to exercise ownership also.  

G.R. No. 118712 Case Digest

G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995

Landbank of the Philippines

vs Court of Appeals, Pedro Yap, Heirs of Emiliano Santiago, Agricultural Management and Development Corp.

Ponente: Francisco

Facts:

Yap and Santiago are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR, subjecting it for transfer to qualified CARP beneficiaries. Aggrieved by the compensation valuation of DAR and LBP, respondents filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with a preliminary mandatory injunction. The case was referred to CA for proper determination and disposition.

Respondents argued that DAR and LBP committed grave abuse of discretion and acted without jurisdiction when they opened trusts accounts in lieu of the depositing in cash or bonds, before the lands was taken and the titles are cancelled. Respondents claim that before the taking of the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or bonds.

DAR, maintained that the certificate of deposit was a substantial compliance with the rule on taking and compensation. LBP confirms that the certificate of deposit expresses "reserved/deposited".

CA ruled in favor of Yap and Santiago. DAR filed a petition.  DAR, maintain that the word "deposit" referred merely to the act of depositing and in no way excluded the opening of a trust account as form of deposit.

Issue: Whether the opening of trust account tantamount to deposit.

Ruling:

Contention of DAR is untenable. Section 16 of RA 6657 provides: (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 that the deposit must be made only in cash or LBP bonds, there is no ambiguity.

G.R. No. L-59603 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-59603, April 29, 1987

Export Processing Zone Authority

vs Hon. Ceferino Dulay

Ponente: Gutierrez, Jr.

Facts:

January 1957, president of the Philippines issued proclamation no 1811 reserving a parcel of land in Lapu-lapu for the establishment of an export processing zone. Not all the reserved land was public. EPZA then offered to purchase the lands from its registered owners, in the valuation set by PD 464,as amended. The owners did not agree.

EPZA filed with CFI-Cebu a complaint for expropriation with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of possession against the landowners. Judge Dulay, later issued a writ of possession authorizing EPZA to take immediate possession of the premises.

After the recommendation of the appointed commissioners as to the just compensation, EPZA filed for a motion for reconsideration saying that the PD 464, as amended, superseded the rules of court. The trial court denied the motion. EPZA then filed for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary restraining order.

Issue: Whether PD 76, 464, 794 and 1533 have repealed the Revised Rules of Court, such that in determining just compensation in expropriation shall be based only in its market value as declared by the owner or by assessor, whichever is lower.

Ruling:

PD 464 on just compensation is unconstitutional and void. The method of just compensation provided by PD 464 is an encroachment on judicial prerogatives, contradicting the Constitution which reserved the power to determine just compensation to the Court's final determination. We are convinced and so rule that the trial court correctly stated that the valuation in the decree may only serve as a guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation but it may not substitute the court's own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount.

Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the taking. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities, should be considered. The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. The executive department or the legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation.

G.R. No. 103125 Case Digest

G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993

Province of Camarines Sur

vs Court of Appeals

Ponente: Quiason

Facts:

This is an appeal for certiorari on the decision on the issue on whether the expropriation of agricultural lands by LGU is subject to prior approval of the DAR.

December 1988, Sangguniang Panlalawigan of CamSur authorized the provincial governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees.

Pursuant to the resolution, Gov. Villafuerte filed two separate cases for expropriation against Ernesto San Joaquin and Efren San Joaquin. Upon motion for the issuance of writ or possession, San Joaquins failed to appear at the hearing.

San Joaquins later moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. The court denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the province to take possession of the properties.

San Joaquins filed for motion for relief, but denied as well. In their petition. Asked by the CA, Solicitor General stated that there is no need for the approval of the president for the province to expropriate properties, however, the approval of the DAR is needed to convert the property from agricultural to non-agricultural (housing purpose).

CA set aside the decision of the trial court suspending the possession and expropriation of the property until th province has acquired the approval of DAR. Hence, this petition.

Ruling:

The rules on conversion of agricultural lands found in Section 4 (k) and 5 (1) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987, cannot be the source of the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to determine the suitability of a parcel of agricultural land for the purpose to which it would be devoted by the expropriating authority. While those rules vest on the Department of Agrarian Reform the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands for residential, commercial or industrial uses, such authority is limited to the applications for reclassification submitted by the land owners or tenant beneficiaries.

To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc, without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use.

Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch of the local government unit that shall determine whether the use of the property sought to be expropriated shall be public, the same being an expression of legislative policy. The courts defer to such legislative determination and will intervene only when a particular undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the public use.