Political - LBP Vs Suntay

5/27/2017 G.R.No.
188376
RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION

LANDBANKOFTHE G.R.No.188376
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, Present:

CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
versus BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,and
VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.

FEDERICOSUNTAY,as Promulgated:
representedbyhisAssignee,
JOSEFINALUBRICA, December14,2011
Respondent.
xx

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:

[1]
In Land Bank v. Suntay, the Court has declared that the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to determine just compensation under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, or CARL) pertains to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) as a Special
AgrarianCourtthatanyefforttotransfersuchjurisdictiontotheadjudicatorsoftheDepartment
ofAgrarianReformAdjudicationBoard(DARAB)andtoconverttheoriginaljurisdictionofthe
RTCintoappellatejurisdictionisvoidforbeingcontrarytotheCARLandthatwhatDARAB
adjudicatorsareempoweredtodoisonlytodetermineinapreliminarymannerthereasonable
compensationtobepaidtothelandowners,leavingtothecourtstheultimatepowertodecide
thisquestion.

Bearingthispronouncementinmind,wegrantthepetitionforreviewoncertiorari and
reversethedecisionpromulgatedonJune5,2009bytheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SP
No.106104entitledLandBankofthePhilippinesv.Hon.ConchitaC.Mias,RegionalAgrarian
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/188376.htm 1/40
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
AdjudicaorofRegionIV,andFedericoSuntay,asrepresentedbyhisAssignee,JosefinaLubrica,
dismissing the petition for certiorari of Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) on the
groundofitsbeingmootandacademic.

ANTECEDENTS

RespondentFedericoSuntay(Suntay)ownedlandsituatedinSta.Lucia,Sablayan,Occidental
Mindorowithatotalareaof3,682.0285hectares.In1972,theDepartmentofAgrarianReform
(DAR)expropriated948.1911hectaresofSuntayslandpursuanttoPresidentialDecreeNo.27.
[2]
Petitioner Land Bank and DAR fixed the value of the expropriated portion at
[3]
P4,497.50/hectare, for a total valuation of P4,251,141.68. Rejecting the valuation, however,
Suntay filed a petition for determination of just compensation in the Office of the Regional
AgrarianReformAdjudicator(RARAD)ofRegionIV,DARAB,docketedasDARABCaseNo.
[4]
V0405000100hispetitionwasassignedtoRARADConchitaMias(RARADMias).

OnJanuary24,2001,aftersummaryadministrativeproceedinginDARABCaseNo.V
0405000100, RARAD Mias rendered a decision fixing the total just compensation for the
expropriatedportionatP157,541,951.30.LandBankmovedforareconsideration,butRARAD
[5]
MiasdenieditsmotiononMarch14,2001.ItreceivedthedenialonMarch26,2001.

On April 20, 2001, Land Bank brought a petition for the judicial determination of just
compensationintheRTC(Branch46)inSanJose,OccidentalMindoroasaSpecialAgrarian
Court,impleadingSuntayandRARADMias.Thepetition,docketedasAgrarianCaseNo.R
1241,essentiallyprayedthatthetotaljustcompensationfortheexpropriatedportionbefixedat
[6]
onlyP4,251,141.67.

G.R.No.159145
DARABv.Lubrica

On May 22, 2001, despite the pendency of Agrarian Case No. R1241 in the RTC,
RARADMiasissuedanorderinDARABCaseNo.V0405000100,declaringthatherdecision
ofJanuary24,2001hadbecomefinalandexecutory.LandBankcontestedtheorderthrougha
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
motionforreconsideration,butRARADMiasdeniedthemotionforreconsiderationonJuly10,
2001.

OnJuly18,2001,RARADMiasissuedawritofexecutiondirectingtheRegionalSheriff
[7]
ofDARABRegionIVtoimplementthedecisionofJanuary24,2001.

OnSeptember12,2001,LandBankfiledinDARABapetitionforcertiorari(withprayer
for the issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO)/preliminary injunction), docketed as
DSCANo.0252,seekingtonullifythefollowingissuancesofRARADMias,towit:

(a) The decision of January 24, 2001 directing Land Bank to pay Suntay just
compensationofP147,541,951.30

(b) The order dated May 22, 2001 declaring the decision of January 24, 2001 as
finalandexecutory

(c)TheorderdatedJuly10,2001denyingLandBanksmotionforreconsideration
and

(d) The writ of execution dated July 18, 2001 directing the sheriff to enforce the
decisionofJanuary24,2001.

On September 12, 2001, DARAB enjoined RARAD Mias from proceeding with the
implementation of the decision of January 24, 2001, and directed the parties to attend the
[8]
hearingtodeterminetheproprietyofissuingapreliminaryorpermanentinjunction.

On September 20, 2001, Josefina Lubrica (Lubrica), the assignee of Suntay, filed a
petitionforprohibitionintheCA(CAG.R.SPNo.66710)topreventDARABfromproceeding
inDSCANo.0252bymainlycontendingthattheCARLdidnotgranttoDARABjurisdiction
overspecialcivilactionsforcertiorari.Onthesameday,theCAgrantedtheprayerforTRO.

OnOctober3,2001,DARABissuedawritofpreliminaryinjunctionenjoiningRARAD
Mias from implementing the January 24, 2001 decision and the orders incidental to said
[9]
decision.

5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
DARAB submitted its own comment to the CA, arguing that it had issued the writ of
injunction under its power of supervision over its subordinates, like the PARADs and the
RARADs.

Land Bank also submitted its own comment, citing the prematurity of the petition for
[10]
prohibition.

OnAugust22,2002,theCApromulgateditsdecisioninCAG.R.SPNo.66710,holding
that DARAB, being a mere formal party, had no personality to file a comment visvis the
petitionforprohibitionandthatDARABhadnojurisdictiontotakecognizanceofDSCANo.
1252,consideringthatitsexerciseofjurisdictionoveraspecialcivilactionforcertiorarihadno
constitutional or statutory basis. Accordingly, the CA granted the petition for prohibition and
perpetually enjoined DARAB from proceeding in DSCA No. 1252, which the CA ordered
[11]
dismissed.

Thence,DARABappealedtheadverseCAdecisiontothisCourt viapetition for review
on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 159145 entitled Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Represented by DAR Secretary
RobertoM.Pagdangananv.JosefinaS.Lubrica,inhercapacityasAssigneeoftherightsand
interest of Federico Suntay (DARAB v. Lubrica), insisting that the CA erred in declaring that
DARABhadnopersonalitytofileacommentinholdingthatDARABhadnojurisdictionover
DSCA No. 0252 and in nullifying the writ of preliminary injunction issued by DARAB in
DSCANo.0252forhavingbeenissuedinviolationoftheCAsTRO.

On April 29, 2005, the Court promulgated its decision in DARAB v. Lubrica (G.R. No.
[12]
159145), denying the petition for review. The Court opined that DARABs limited
jurisdictionasaquasijudicialbodydidnotincludetheauthoritytotakecognizanceofpetitions
forcertiorari,intheabsenceofanexpressgrantinR.A.No.6657,ExecutiveOrder(E.O.)No.
229,andE.O.No.129A.

G.R.No.157903
LandBankv.Suntay

5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
Inthemeanwhile,inAgrarianCaseNo.R1241,Suntayfiledamotiontodismiss,claimingthat
LandBankspetitionforjudicialdeterminationofjustcompensationhadbeenfiledbeyondthe
15dayreglementaryperiodprescribedinSection11,RuleXIIIoftheNewRulesofProcedure
ofDARABandthat,byvirtueofsuchtardiness,RARADMiasdecisionhadbecomefinaland
[13]
executory.
TheRTCgrantedSuntaysmotiontodismissonAugust6,2001onthatground.

LandBanksoughtreconsideration,maintainingthatitspetitionforjudicialdetermination
ofjustcompensationwasaseparateactionthatdidnotemanatefromthecaseintheRARAD.

Nonetheless,theRTCdeniedLandBanksmotionforreconsiderationonAugust31,2001.
[14]

OnSeptember10,2001,LandBankfiledanoticeofappealinAgrarianCaseNo.R1241,
buttheRTCdeniedduecoursetothenoticeofappealonJanuary18,2002,pointingoutthatthe
propermodeofappealwasbypetitionforreviewpursuanttoSection60oftheCARL.

[15]
TheRTCdeniedLandBanksmotionforreconsiderationonMarch8,2002.

Thereupon,LandBankassailedintheCAtheRTCsorders dated January 18, 2002 and
March8,2002viaaspecialcivilactioncertiorari (CAG.R. SP No. 70015), alleging that the
RTCtherebycommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionin
denyingduecoursetoitsnoticeofappealandcontendingthatdecisionsorfinalordersofthe
RTCs,actingasSpecialAgrarianCourts,werenotappealabletotheCAthroughapetitionfor
reviewbutthroughanoticeofappeal.

OnJuly19,2002,theCApromulgateditsdecisioninCAG.R.SPNo.70015,granting
Land Banks petition for certiorari nullifying the RTCs orders dated January 18, 2002 and
March8,2002allowingduecoursetoLandBanksnoticeofappealandpermanentlyenjoining
the RTC from enforcing the nullified orders, and the RARAD from enforcing the writ of
[16]
executionissuedinDARABCaseNo.V0405000100.

5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
Thereafter, upon Suntays motion for reconsideration, the CA reversed itself through the
[17]
amendeddecisiondatedFebruary5,2003, anddismissedLandBankspetitionforcertiorari,
thuswise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Motion for Reconsideration is hereby
GRANTED.Consequently,thepresentpetitionisherebyDISMISSED.

The injunction issued by this Court enjoining (a) respondent Executive Judge from
enforcinghisOrdersdatedJanuary18,2002andMarch8,2002inAgrarianCaseNo.R1241
and(b)respondentRegionalAgrarianReformAdjudicatorConchitaS.Miasfromenforcingthe
WritofExecutiondatedJuly18,2001issuedinDARABCaseNo.V0405000100,arehereby
REVOKEDandSETASIDE.

SOORDERED.

[18]
OnApril10,2003,theCAdeniedtheLandBanksmotionforreconsideration.

OnMay6,2003,LandBankappealedtotheCourt,docketedasG.R.No.157903,entitledLand
BankofthePhilippinesv.FedericoSuntay,RepresentedbyhisAssignee,JosefinaLubrica(Land
[19]
Bankv.Suntay).

OnOctober12,2005,theCourtissuedaTROuponLandBanksurgentmotiontostopthe
implementationofRARADMiasdecisiondatedJanuary24,2001pendingthefinalresolution
[20]
ofG.R.No.157903.

On October 11, 2007, this Court promulgated its decision in Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No.
[21]
157903), viz:

The crucial issue for our resolution is whether the RTC erred in dismissing the Land
Bankspetitionforthedeterminationofjustcompensation.

ItisclearthattheRTCtreatedthepetitionforthedeterminationofjustcompensationas
anappealfromtheRARADDecisioninDARABCaseNo.V0405000100.Indismissingthe
petitionforbeingfiledoutoftime,theRTCreliedonSection11,RuleXIIIoftheDARABNew
RulesofProcedurewhichprovides:

Section 11. Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just
Compensation. The decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary
determination and payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to the Board
[Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)] but shall be brought
directlytotheRegionalTrialCourtsdesignatedasSpecialAgrarianCourtswithinfifteen
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
(15)daysfromreceiptofthenoticethereof.Anypartyshallbeentitledtoonlyonemotion
forreconsideration.
TheRTCerredindismissingtheLandBankspetition.Itbearsstressingthatthepetitionis
notanappealfromtheRARADfinalDecisionbutanoriginalactionforthedeterminationof
the just compensation for respondents expropriated property, over which the RTC has original
andexclusivejurisdiction.ThisisclearfromSection57ofR.A.No.6657whichprovides:

Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. The Special Agrarian Courts [the designated
RegionalTrialCourts]shallhaveoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionoverallpetitionsfor
the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all
criminaloffensesunderthisAct.TheRulesofCourtshallapplytoallproceedingsbefore
theSpecialAgrarianCourts,unlessmodifiedbythisAct.
The SpecialAgrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special
jurisdictionwithinthirty(30)daysfromsubmissionofthecasefordecision.(Underscoring
supplied)

Parenthetically, the above provision is not in conflict with Section 50 of the same R.A.
No.6657whichstates:

Section 50. Quasijudicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested with
primary jurisdiction to 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)andtheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)xx
x.

In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, we held that Section 50 must be
construedinharmonywithSection57byconsideringcasesinvolvingthedeterminationofjust
compensationandcriminalcasesforviolationsofR.A.No.6657asexceptedfromtheplenitude
ofpowerconferredupontheDAR.Indeed,thereisareasonforthisdistinction.TheDARisan
administrativeagencywhichcannotbegrantedjurisdictionovercasesofeminentdomain(such
as taking of land under R.A. No. 6657) and over criminal cases. Thus, in Land Bank of the
Philippinesv.Celada,ExportProcessingZoneAuthorityv.DulayandSumulongv.Guerrero,we
held that the valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial function which
cannotbevestedinadministrativeagencies.Also,inScotysDepartmentStore,etal.v.Micaller,
westruckdownalawgrantingthethenCourtofIndustrialRelationsjurisdictiontotrycriminal
casesforviolationsoftheIndustrialPeaceAct.

TheprocedureforthedeterminationofjustcompensationcasesunderR.A.No.6657,as
summarizedinLandbankofthePhilippinesv.Banal,isthatinitially,theLandBankischarged
with the responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under land reform and the
compensation to be paid for their taking under the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory
acquisition arrangement. The DAR, relying on the Land Banks determination of the land
valuationandcompensation,thenmakesanofferthroughanoticesenttothelandowner.Ifthe
landowneracceptstheoffer,theLandBankshallpayhimthepurchasepriceofthelandafterhe
executes and delivers a deed of transfer and surrenders the certificate of title in favor of the
government.Incasethelandownerrejectstheofferorfailstoreplythereto,theDARadjudicator
conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by
requiringthelandowner,theLandBankandotherinterestedpartiestosubmitevidenceastothe
justcompensationfortheland.ApartywhodisagreeswiththeDecisionoftheDARadjudicator
maybringthemattertotheRTCdesignatedasaSpecialAgrarianCourtforthedeterminationof
just compensation. In determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider several
factors enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657. These factors have been translated into a
basicformulainDARAdministrativeOrder(A.O.)No.6,Seriesof1992,asamendedbyDAR
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994, issued pursuant to the DARs rulemaking power to carry out the
objectandpurposesofR.A.No.6657.
xxx
Obviously, these factors involve factual matters which can be established only
duringahearingwhereinthecontendingpartiespresenttheirrespectiveevidence.
Infact,tounderscoretheintricatenatureofdeterminingthevaluationoftheland,
Section58ofthesamelawevenauthorizestheSpecialAgrarianCourtstoappoint
commissionersforsuchpurpose.

Intheinstantcase,theLandBankproperlyinstituteditspetitionforthedeterminationof
just compensation before the RTC in accordance with R.A. No. 6657. The RTC erred in
dismissing the petition.To repeat, Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657 is explicit in vesting the RTC,
acting as a Special Agrarian Court, original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
determinationofjustcompensationtolandowners.AsweheldinRepublicofthePhilippinesv.
CourtofAppeals:
xxx.ItwouldsubvertthisoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionoftheRTCfortheDAR
tovestoriginaljurisdictionincompensationcasesinadministrativeofficialsandmakethe
RTCanappellatecourtforthereviewofadministrativedecisions.

Consequently,althoughthenewrules[Section11,RuleXIIIoftheDARABNew
RulesofProcedure]speakofdirectlyappealingthedecisionofadjudicatorstothe
RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from Section 57 that the
originalandexclusive jurisdiction to determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any
effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to convert the
original jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate jurisdiction would be
contrary to Section 57 and therefore would be void. What adjudicators are
empowered to do is only to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable
compensationtobepaidtolandowners,leavingtothecourtstheultimatepowerto
decidethisquestion.(Underscoringsupplied)

WHEREFORE,weGRANTtheinstantPetitionforReviewonCertiorari.Theassailed
AmendedDecisiondatedFebruary5,2003andResolutiondatedApril10,2003oftheCourtof
Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 70015 are REVERSED. The Orders dated January 18, 2002 and
March8,2002issuedbytheRTCinAgrarianCaseNo.R1241areNULLIFIED.TheRTCis
ORDEREDto conduct further proceedings to determine the just compensation of respondents
expropriated property in accordance with the guidelines set by this Court in Landbank of the
Philippinesv.Banal.

Nopronouncementastocosts.

[22]
SOORDERED.

Suntaysoughtreconsideration,invokingthepronouncementinDARABv.Lubrica(G.R.
No.159145)totheeffectthattheRARADDecisionhadalreadyattainedfinalityinaccordance
withtheabovequotedrule,notwithstandingLandBanksrecoursetothespecialagrariancourt.
[23]

5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
[24]
OnJanuary30,2008,however,theCourtdeniedSuntaysmotionforreconsideration.
Accordingly,thedecisioninLandBankv.Suntaybecamefinalandexecutory.

SecondExecutionin
DARABCaseNo.V0405000100

OnSeptember14,2005,notwithstandingthependencyofLandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.
157903) in this Court, RARAD Mias granted Suntays ex parte motion for the issuance of an
aliaswritofexecutionbycitingthepronouncementinDARABv.Lubrica(G.R.No.159145)to
the effect that her decision dated January 24, 2001 had attained finality in accordance with
[25]
DARABsrulesofprocedure.

Actingpursuanttothealiaswritofexecution,theDARABsheriffsissuedandservedthe
followingnoticesonthedatesindicatedherein,towit:

[26]
(a)AnoticeofdemandtoLandBankonSeptember15,2005

[27]
(b)AnoticeoflevytoLandBankonSeptember21,2005

[28]
(c) A notice of levy to Bank of the Philippine Islands and to Hongkong
[29]
ShanghaiBankCorporationbothonSeptember28,2005 and

(d)Anordertodeliversomuchofthefundsinitscustodysufficienttosatisfythe
[30]
finaljudgmenttoLandBankonOctober5,2005.
The moves of the sheriffs compelled Land Bank to file an urgent verified motion for the
issuanceofaTROorwritofpreliminaryinjunctioninLandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903).

OnOctober12,2005,actingonLandBanksurgentmotion,theCourtresolvedinLand
Bankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903),viz:

(a) to issue a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER prayed for, effective immediately,
enjoining and restraining Hon. Conchita C. Mias or the Regional Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator(RARAD)concerned,fromissuinganaliaswritofexecutionimplementing
theRARADdecisiondatedJanuary24,2000,untilfurtherordersfromthiscourtand

(b)torequirethepetitionertoPOSTaCASHBONDoraSURETYBONDfromareputable
bonding company of indubitable solvency in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), within five (5) days from notice, otherwise, the
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
temporaryrestrainingorderhereinissuedshallAUTOMATICALLYbelifted.Unlessand
until the Court directs otherwise, the bond shall be effective from its approval by the
[31]
Courtuntilthiscaseisfinallydecided,resolvedorterminated.

OnOctober24,2005,theCourtdirectedthepartiesinLandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903)
[32]
tomaintainthestatusquoante, thus:

G.R.No.157903xxx Actingonthepetitionersveryurgentmanifestationandomnibus
motion dated October 21, 2005, the Court Resolves to DIRECT the parties to maintain the
STATUSQUOpriortotheissuanceoftheAliasWritofExecutiondatedSeptember14,2005.All
actionsdoneincomplianceorinconnectionwiththesaidWritissuedbyHon.ConchitaC.Mias,
Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD), are hereby DEEMED QUASHED, and
therefore,ofnoforceandeffect.

OnthesamedayofOctober24,2005,however,thesheriffsheldapublicauctionofLandBanks
leviedsharesofstockinthePhilippineLongDistanceTelephoneCompany(PLDT)andManila
ElectricCompany(MERALCO)attheOfficeoftheDARABRegionalClerkinMandaluyong
[33]
City.Inthatpublicauction,Lubrica,thelonebidder,wasdeclaredthehighestbidder.

On October 25, 2005, the same sheriffs resumed the public auction of Land Banks
remainingPLDTsharesofstockandFirstGenCorporationbonds.Lubricawasagaindeclared
[34]
thehighestbidder. ThesheriffsthenissuedtwocertificatesofsaleinfavorofLubrica.

OnOctober25,2005,RARADMiasreversedherselfandquashedallactsdonepursuant
[35]
tothewritofexecution, viz:

ThisreferstotheResolutionoftheThirdDivisionoftheSupremeCourtdatedOctober24,
2005inG.R.No.157903(LandBankofthePhilippinesvs.FedericoSuntay,RepresentedbyHis
Assignee, Josefina Lubrica) directing the parties to maintain the STATUS QUO prior to the
issuanceoftheAliasWritofExecutiondatedSeptember14,2005andthatallactionsdonein
complianceorinconnectionwithsaidWritissuedbyHon.ConchitaC.Mias,RegionalAgrarian
ReformAdjudicator(RARAD)areherebyDEEMEDQUASHED,andtherefore,ofnoforceand
effect.

The Sheriffs and all parties in this case are ordered to strictly comply with this Order
immediately.

SOORDERED.

5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
As earlier stated, on October 11, 2007, the Court resolved Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No.
[36]
157903)infavorofLandBank.

ThisCase(G.R.No.188376)

OnOctober29,2008,SuntaypresentedtoRARADMiasinDARABCaseNo.V0405
[37]
000100hisurgentexpartemanifestationandmotiontoresumeinterruptedexecution, citing
LandBankv.Martinez(G.R.No.169008,July31,2008,560SCRA776).

Immediately, on October 30, 2008, RARAD Mias granted Suntays urgent ex parte
manifestationandmotion,andorderedtheDARABsheriffstoresumetheirimplementationof
thealiaswritofexecutionissuedinDARABCaseNo.V0405000100,stating:

Thebasisofthemotion,thecaseofLandBankvs.RaymundaMartinez(supra)indubitably
clarifiedthattheadjudicatorsdecisiononlandvaluationattainedfinalityafterthelapseofthe15
dayperiodcitingthecaseofDepartmentofAgrarianReformAdjudicationBoardvs.Lubricain
GRNo.159145promulgatedonApril29,2005.Movantinthiscasethereforeiscorrectthatthe
DecisionintheLandBankcaseofthePhilippinesvs.RaymundaMartinezresolvedtheconflict
byrenderingaDecisionupholdingtherulingsoftheSecondDivisionoftheSupremeCourtin
GR No. 159145 entitled Department of Agrarian ReformAdjudication Board (DARAB) of the
DepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR)representedbyDARSecretary,RobertoM.Pagdanganan
vs.

JosefinaLubricainhercapacityasAssigneeofrightsandinterestofFedericoSuntayandstriking
downaserroneoustherulingsoftheThirdDivisioninGRNo.157903entitledLandBankofthe
Philippinesvs.FedericoSuntay,et.al.

The ruling in the case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Raymunda Martinez which
upheldtheDecisioninLubricahavingattainedfinality,theStatusQuoOrderissuedbytheThird
DivisioninGRNo.157903isnowrenderedineffective.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theinstantmotionisherebyGRANTED.

SheriffsMaximoElejerioandJuanitaBaylonareherebyorderedtoresumetheinterrupted
executionoftheAliasWritissuedinthiscaseonSeptember14,2005.

[38]
SOORDERED.

TheDARABsheriffsforthwithservedademandtocomplydatedOctober30,2008onthe
Philippine Depository and Trust Corporation (PDTC) and Securities Transfer Services, Inc.
[39]
(STSI).
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376

ByletterdatedOctober31,2008,PDTCnotifiedLandBankaboutitsbeingservedwith
thedemandtocomplyandaboutitsactionthereon,includinganimpliedrequestforLandBank
[40]
toupliftthesecurities.

AlsoonOctober31,2008,PDTCfiledamanifestationandcomplianceintheofficeofthe
RARAD,RegionIV,statingthatithadalreadyissuedawrittennoticetoLandBanktoupliftthe
assetsinvolvedandthatitha(d)causedthesubjectassetstobeoutsidethedispositionofLand
[41]
Bank.

Inresponse,LandBankwrotebackonNovember3,2008torequestPDTCtodisregard
[42]
theDARABsheriffsdemandtocomply.

PDTCrespondedtoLandBankthatitwasnotinthepositiontodeterminethelegalityof
[43]
thedemandtocomply,andthatitwastakingthenecessarylegalaction.

On November 10, 2008, PDTC sent a supplemental letter to Land Bank reiterating its
[44]
previousletter.

Giventheforegoing,LandBankcommencedonNovember12,2008aspecialcivilaction
forcertiorariintheCA(CAG.R.SPNo.106104),allegingthatRARADMiashadcommitted
graveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorinexcessofjurisdictioninrenderingexpartethe
assailed Order dated October 30, 2008 as it varies, modifies or alters the Supreme Court
DecisiondatedOctober11,2007,whichhadbecomefinalandexecutoryandthattheDARAB
sheriffshadcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionin
issuing to, and serving on, the Philippine Depository and Trust Corporation, a copy of the
Demand to Comply dated October 30, 2008 notwithstanding the unquestioned finality of the
[45]
SupremeCourtsdecisiondatedOctober11,2007.

[46]
SuntaysubmittedacommentandopposedtheissuanceofaTRO.

5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
On November 28, 2008, before the CA could act on Land Banks application for TRO,
MERALCOcancelledLandBanks42,002,750sharesofstockandissuednewstockcertificates
inthenameofLubrica.MERALCOrecordedthetransferofownershipoftheaffectedstocksin
its stock and transfer book. All such acts of MERALCO were done in compliance with the
demand to comply by the DARAB sheriffs pursuant to the certificate of sheriffs sale dated
October 24, 2005 and the certificate authorizing registration dated November 20, 2008
[47]
(respectingLandBanksMERALCOshares)issuedinfavorofLubrica.

Withoutyetbeingawareofthetransfers,theCAissuedaTROonDecember4,2008to
[48]
preventtheimplementationofRARADMiasorderdatedOctober30,2008. LandBankthen
[49]
soughttheapprovalofitsbondforthatpurpose.

On December 4, 2008, MERALCO communicated to the CA its cancellation of Land
BankscertificatesofMERALCOstocksonNovember28,2008anditsissuanceofnewstock
[50]
certificatesinthenameofLubrica.

Learning of the cancellation of its stock certificates and the transfer of its MERALCO
shares in the name of Lubrica, Land Bank filed on December 12, 2008 its very urgent
manifestationandomnibusmotion,prayingthattheCAsTROissuedonDecember4,2008be
madetocoveranyandallactsdonepursuanttotheassailedorderdatedOctober30,2008and
thedemandtocomplydatedOctober30,2008.LandBankfurtherprayedthatthecancellation
ofitscertificatesofMERALCOsharesbeinvalidatedandthetransferofthesharesinfavorof
[51]
Lubricabequashed,andthatthepartiesbedirectedtomaintainthestatusquoante.

On December 17, 2008, Land Bank presented a very urgent motion to resolve and
supplemental motion, seeking to expand the scope of the TRO earlier issued to restrain the
Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) from allowing the trading of its (Land Bank) entire
MERALCO shares, and the Corporate Secretary of MERALCO from recording or registering
the transfer of ownership of Land Banks MERALCO shares to other parties in MERALCOs
stockandtransferbooktoinvalidatethecancellationofthecertificatesofMERALCOshares
and to quash the transfer in favor of Lubrica and all subsequent transfers to other parties to
direct the parties and all concerned persons and entities to maintain the status quo and to
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
declareallactsdonepursuanttotheassailedorderandthedemandtocomplynullandvoidand
[52]
ofnoforceandeffect.

On December 24, 2008, the CA denied Land Banks very urgent motion to resolve and
[53]
supplementalmotion.

In the meantime, DAR administratively charged and preventively suspended RARAD
Mias for issuing the October 30, 2008 order, and replaced her with RARAD Marivic Casabar
[54]
(RARADCasabar)inRARADRegionIV.

OnDecember15,2008,RARADCasabarrecalledRARADMiasorderdatedOctober30,
[55]
2008.

OnDecember17,2008,RARADCasabardirected:

(a) MERALCO to cancel the stock certificates issued to Lubrica and to any of her
transfereesorassignees,andtorestoretheownershipofthesharestoLandBankandtorecord
therestorationinMERALCOsstockandtransferbookand

(b) PSE, PDTC, STSI, the Philippine Dealing System Holdings Corporation and
Subsidiaries(PDSGroup),andanystockbroker,dealer,oragentofMERALCOsharestostop
[56]
tradingordealingontheshares.

OnJune5,2009,theCApromulgatedaresolutioninCAG.R.SPNo.106104,dismissing
[57]
LandBankspetitionforcertiorariforbeingmootandacademic, citingtherecallbyRARAD
CasabarofRARADMiassorderofOctober30,2008.
OnJune23,2009,LandBank,throughtheOfficeoftheGovernmentCorporateAttorney,
filedinthisCourtamotionforextensionoftimetofilepetitionforreviewoncertiorari,seeking
[58]
additionaltimeof30dayswithinwhichtofileitspetitionforreviewoncertiorari.

OnJuly24,2009,beforetheCourtcouldtakeanyactiononitsmotionforextensionof
timetofilepetitionforreview,LandBankmovedtowithdrawthemotion,allegedlybecausethe
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
CAstillretainedjurisdictionoverCAG.R.SPNo.106104duetoLubricashavingmeanwhile
filedthefollowingmotionsandpapersinCAG.R.SPNo.106104,namely:

(a) Motion for reconsideration or for clarificatory ruling dated June 23, 2009, a
copyofwhichLandBankreceivedonJuly2,2009

(b)Additional arguments in support of the motion for reconsideration and for
clarificatoryrulingdatedJuly1,2009,acopyofwhichLandBankreceivedon
July8,2009

(c)MotionforleaveofcourttofiletheattachedmanifestationdatedJuly8,2009,a
copyofwhichLandBankreceivedonJuly13,2009

(d)ManifestationdatedJuly8,2009,acopyofwhichLandBankreceivedonJuly
13,2009and

(e)MotiontodirectRARADCasabartoexplainwhyshehadissuedherordersof
December 15, 2008 and December 17, 2008, a copy of which Land Bank
[59]
receivedonJuly20,2009.

OnJuly31,2009,LandBankfiledaveryurgentexpartemotionforexecutiondatedJuly
30,2009inDARAB,seekingtheexecutionofRARADCasabarsordersofDecember15,2008
[60]
andDecember17,2008.

OnAugust7,2009,LandBankfiledinthisCourt:(a)amotiontowithdrawitsmotionto
withdrawmotionforextensionoftimetofilepetitionforreviewoncertiorariand(b)amotion
[61] [62]
forleavetofileandtoadmit theattachedpetitionforreviewoncertiorari.

OnSeptember9,2009,theCourtdeniedLandBanksmotiontowithdrawitsmotiontowithdraw
motionforextensionoftimetofilepetitionforreviewoncertiorari, but granted Land Banks
motionforleavetofileandtoadmittheattachedpetitionforreviewoncertiorari. The Court
requiredLubricatocommentonthepetitionforreview,andLandBanktocomplywithA.M.
[63]
No.0765SCdatedJuly10,2007.

OnSeptember30,2009,theCAdeniedLubricasmotiontodirectRARAD Casabar to explain
whyshehadissuedher orders of December 15, 2008 and December 17, 2008, among others.
[64]
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376

[65]
OnOctober14,2009,Lubricafiledamotionforleavetofilemotiontodismiss, statingthat
Land Banks petition for certiorari had been filed out of time and that the assailed order of
RARAD Mias had been affirmed by the final judgment in DARAB v. Lubrica (G.R. No.
159145),andhadbeensupportedbytherulinginLandBankv.Martinez,G.R.No.169008,July
31,2008,560SCRA776.

OnMay5,2010,LandBankfiledanurgentverifiedmotionfortheissuanceofaTROor
writ of preliminary injunction, seeking thereby to enjoin MERALCO, its Corporate Secretary,
and its Assistant Corporate Secretary, pending the proceedings and until the resolution of the
case, from releasing on May 11, 2010 and thereafter the cash dividends pertaining to the
[66]
disputedsharesinfavorofLubricaoranypersonactingonherbehalf.

[67]
LubricaopposedLandBanksmotion.

Todate,theCourthastakennoactiononLandBanksurgentverifiedmotion.

ISSUES

LandBankcontendsthat:

The Court of Appeals acted not in accord with law and with the applicable jurisprudence
whenitdismissedthepetitionaquoonpurelytechnicalgrounds.

A.
ContrarytothefindingsoftheCourtofAppeals,DARABv.Lubricaisnotthelawof
thecaseinsofarastheissueontheproperproceduretofollowinthedeterminationof
thejustcompensationisconcerned.

B.
TheissuebeforetheCourtofAppeals,whethertheorderdated30October2008was
issuedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,hasnotbeenrenderedmootandacademicwith
thesubsequentissuanceoftheorderdatedDecember15,2008.

C.
The Court of Appeals erred when in gave its implicit imprimatur to the irregular
procedure for execution, which the RARAD and the DARAB sheriffs adopted, in
[68]
grossviolationofRepublicActNo.6657andtheDARABRulesofProcedure.

Ontheotherhand,Lubricaproposesasissue:
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376

[69]
IstheJanuary24,2001DecisionofRARADConchitaMiasfinalandexecutory?

Asweseeit,then,theCourthastoresolvethefollowing,towit:

1. Whether or not RARAD Casabars orders dated December 15, 2008 and
December 18, 2008 rendered Land Banks petition for certiorari moot and
academic

2.WhetherornotRARADMiasorderdatedOctober30,2008wasvalidand

3. WhetherornotthemannerofexecutionofRARADMiasorderdatedOctober
30,2008waslawful.

RULING

Theappealhasmerit.

I.
WhetherornotRARADCasabarsorders
datedDecember15,2008andDecember18,2008
renderedLandBankspetitionforcertiorarimootandacademic

TheCArationalizeditsdismissalofLandBankspetitionforcertiorariinthefollowing
manner:

Itmustbestressedthatthis Courtisdismissing the instant petition not because it has
lostjurisdictionoverthecasebutbecausethecasehasalreadybecomemootandacademic.
Inotherwords,thisCourtisdismissingthecaseoutofpracticalitybecauseproceedingwiththe
meritofthecasewouldonlybeanexerciseinfutility.ThisisbecausewhicheverwaythisCourt
would later decide the case would only be rendered immaterial and ineffectual by the
foregoingnewOrdersoftheRARAD.Toelaborate,adenialoftheinstantpetitionwouldmean
thatWearesustainingtheMiasOrderdatedOctober30,2008which,asmattersstandrightnow,
hadbeensupersededbythetwonewordersoftheRARAD.WillsustainingRARADMiasOrder
havetheeffectofnullifyingthetwonewordersofRARADCasabar?Theanswerisstillinthe
negative. On the other hand, the ultimate result of granting this petition would be that the two
newOrderswouldstillgovern,whichisalreadytheprevailingsituationatthispoint.Indeed,the
dismissalofthecaseonthisgroundisinitselfanexercisebytheCourtofitsjurisdictionoverthe
[70]
case.

5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
WecannotupholdtheCA.

TotheextentthatitnullifiedandrecalledRARADMiasOctober30,2008order,RARAD
Casabars December 15, 2008 order seemingly mooted Land Banks petition for certiorari
(wherebyLandBankcontendedthatRARADMias,throughherorderdatedOctober30,2008,
could not disregard or invalidate the decision promulgated on October 11, 2007 in G.R. No.
157903,andthatthemonies,funds,sharesofstocks,andaccountsofLandBank,whichdidnot
form part of the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF), could not be levied upon, garnished, or
[71]
transferredtoLubricainsatisfactionofRARADMiasJanuary24,2000decision).

Atfirstglance,indeed,RARADCasabarsDecember15,2008orderseeminglyrendered
the reliefs prayed for by the petition for certiorari unnecessary and moot. An issue is said to
become moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that a
[72]
declarationontheissuewouldbeofnopracticaluseorvalue.

However, the application of the mootandacademic principle is subject to several
[73]
exceptionsalreadyrecognizedinthisjurisdiction.InDavidv.MacapagalArroyo, theCourt
hasdeclaredthatthemootandacademicprincipleisnotamagicalformulathatautomatically
dissuades courts from resolving cases, because they will decide cases, otherwise moot and
academic,iftheyfindthat:

(a)ThereisagraveviolationoftheConstitution

(b) The situation is of exceptional character, and paramount public interest is
involved

(a) Theconstitutionalissueraisedrequiresformulationofcontrollingprinciplesto
guidetheBench,theBar,andthepublicor

(b)Acaseiscapableofrepetitionyetevadingreview.

In addition, in Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the
[74]
Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP), the Court has come to consider a
voluntary cessation by the defendant or the doer of the activity complained of as another
exceptiontothemootandacademicprinciple,theexplanationfortheexceptionbeingthat:
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376

xxxonceasuitisfiledandthedoervoluntarilyceasesthechallengedconduct,itdoesnot
automaticallydeprivethetribunalofpowertohearanddeterminethecaseanddoesnotrender
thecasemootespeciallywhentheplaintiffseeksdamagesorpraysforinjunctivereliefagainst
thepossiblerecurrenceoftheviolation.

Theexceptionofvoluntarycessationoftheactivitywithoutassuringthenonrecurrenceofthe
violationsquarelycoversthiscase.Hence,theCAsdismissalofCAG.R.SPNo.106104onthe
groundofmootnessmustbeundone.

Yet another reason why the Court should still resolve derives from the fact that the
superveningRARADCasabarsrecallorderdidnotatallresolveandterminatethecontroversy
between the parties. The CA itself conceded that Lubrica could still assail the validity of
[75]
RARADCasabarsrecallorder. Thatpossibilityunderscorestheneedtodefinitelyresolvethe
controversybetweenthepartiestoavoidfurtherdelay.Ashereinshown,thisappealisthethird
timethattheinterventionoftheCourthasbeeninvokedregardingthecontroversy,theearlier
onesbeingDARABv.Lubrica(G.R.No.159145)andLandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903).
Theneedtoputanendtothecontroversythusbecomesallthemorepressingandpractical.

We further discern that the parties have heretofore acted to advance their respective
interests and claims against each other by relying on seemingly conflicting pronouncements
made in DARAB v. Lubrica (G.R. No. 159145) and Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No. 157903).
Theirreliancehasunavoidablyspawnedandwillcontinuetospawnconfusionabouttheirrights
andcanoccasionmoredelaysinthesettlementoftheirclaims.

The Court does not surely desire confusion and delay to intervene in any litigation,
becausetheCourtonlyaimstoensuretolitigantsajust,speedy,andinexpensiveadministration
of justice. Thus, the Court feels bound to undo the CAs deeming Land Banks petition for
certiorarimootedbyRARADCasabarsrecallorder.Verily,RARADMiasassailedorder,until
and unless its legality is declared and settled by final judgment, may yet be revived, and the
judicialdisputebetweenthepartieshereinmaythenstillresurrectitself.

II.
WhetherornotRARADMiasorder
datedOctober30,2008wasvalid

5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
ThecontroversyistraceabletotheOctober30,2005OrderofRARADMiasdirectingthe
DARABsheriffstoresumetheimplementationofthealiaswritofexecutionshehadissuedin
DARABCaseNo.V0405000100.Shepredicatedherorderonthefollowingpronouncement
[76]
madeinLandBankv.Martinez, viz:

ToresolvetheconflictintherulingsoftheCourt,wenowdeclareherein,fortheguidance
ofthebenchandthebar,thatthebetterruleisthatstatedinPhilippineVeteransBank,reiterated
inLubricaandintheAugust14,2007Decisioninthiscase.Thus,whileapetitionforthefixing
of just compensation with the SAC is not an appeal from the agrarian reform adjudicators
decisionbutanoriginalaction,the same has to be filed within the 15day period stated in the
DARABRulesotherwise, the adjudicators decision will attain finality. This rule is not only in
accordwithlawandsettledjurisprudencebutalsowiththeprinciplesofjusticeandequity.Verily,
abelatedpetitionbeforetheSAC,e.g.,onefiledamonth,orayear,orevenadecadeafterthe
landvaluationoftheDARadjudicator,mustnotleavethedispossessedlandownerinastateof
[77]
uncertaintyastothetruevalueofhisproperty.

LandBankcontends,however,thatLandBankv.Martinezdidnotvary,alter,ordisregard
thejudgmentinLandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903).

LubricacountersthatinsteadofLandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903)beingapplicable,
itwasDARABv.Lubrica(G.R.No.159145)thathadbecomeimmutableandunalterable.

Lubricaisgrosslymistaken.

Through the resolution promulgated on January 30, 2008 in Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R.
No.157903),theCourtdeniedwithfinalitySuntaysmotionforreconsiderationfiledagainstthe
October 11, 2007 decision. The decrees in Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No. 157903) were to
nullifytheorderdatedJanuary18,2002(denyingduecoursetoLandBanksnoticeofappealof
the dismissal of its petition for determination of just compensation upon Suntays motion to
dismiss)andtheorderdatedMarch8,2002(denyingLandBanksmotionforreconsideration),
bothissuedbytheRTCinAgrarianCaseNo.R1241andtoordertheRTCtoconductfurther
proceedings to determine the just compensation of (Suntay)s expropriated property in
accordancewiththeguidelinessetbythisCourtinLandbankofthePhilippinesv.Banal.

Ineffect,LandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903)setasidethedecisionofRARADMias
datedJanuary24,2000fixingthejustcompensation.ThefinalityofthejudgmentinLandBank
v.Suntay(G.R.No.157903)meantthatthedecreesthereofcouldnolongerbealtered,modified,
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
orreversedevenbytheCourtenbanc.Nothingismoresettledinlawthanthatajudgment,once
it attains finality, becomes immutable and unalterable, and can no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous
conclusionoffactorlaw,andregardlessofwhetherthemodificationisattemptedtobemadeby
[78]
thecourtrenderingitorbythehighestcourtoftheland. Thisrulerestsontheprinciplethat
all litigation must come to an end, however unjust the result of error may appear otherwise,
litigationwillbecomeevenmoreintolerablethanthewrongorinjusticeitisdesignedtocorrect.
[79]

Resultantly,LubricacannotinvokethepronouncementinLandBankv.Martinezinorder
to bar the conclusive effects of the judicial result reached in Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No.
157903).

II.a.
LandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903)
isnowthelawofthecase

WeunderscorethatLandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903)wastheappropriatecasefor
thedeterminationoftheissueofthefinalityoftheassailedRARADDecisionbyvirtueofits
originatingfromLandBanksfilingonApril20,2001ofitspetitionforjudicialdeterminationof
just compensation against Suntay and RARAD Mias in the RTC sitting as a Special Agrarian
Court.Therein,Suntayfiledamotiontodismissmainlyonthegroundthatthepetitionhadbeen
filedbeyondthe15dayreglementaryperiodasrequiredbySection11,RuleXIIIoftheRulesof
ProcedureofDARAB.AftertheRTCgrantedthemotiontodismiss,LandBankappealedtothe
CA, which sustained the dismissal. As a result, Land Bank came to the Court (G.R. No.
157903), and the Court then defined the decisive issue to be: whether the RTC erred in
[80]
dismissingtheLandBankspetitionforthedeterminationofjustcompensation.

The Court ruled in favor of Land Bank. For both Land Bank and Suntay (including his
assigneeLubrica),theholdinginLandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903)becamethelawofthe
casethatnowcontrolledthecourseofsubsequentproceedingsintheRTCasaSpecialAgrarian
[81]
Court. In Cucueco v. Court of Appeals, the Court defined law of the case as the opinion
deliveredonaformerappeal.Lawofthecaseisatermappliedtoanestablishedrulethatwhen
an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court for further
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
proceedings,thequestiontheresettledbecomesthelawofthecaseuponsubsequentappeal.It
means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision
betweenthesamepartiesinthesamecasecontinuestobethelawofthecase,whethercorrect
ongeneralprinciplesornot,solongasthefactsonwhichsuchdecisionwaspredicatedcontinue
[82]
to be the facts of the case before the court. With the pronouncement in G.R. No. 157903
havingundeniablybecomethelawofthecasebetweentheparties,wecannotpassuponandrule
againonthesamelegalissuebetweenthesameparties.

II.b.
LandBankv.Martinezisneither
applicablenorbindingonthepartiesherein

SuntaysrelianceonLandBankv.Martinez(G.R.No.169008,July31,2008,560SCRA
776)isunavailingforthesimplereasonthatthepronouncementwasabsolutelyunrelatedtothe
presentcontroversy.

LandBankv.Martinezconcernedadifferentsetoffacts,adifferentsetofparties,anda
differentsubjectmatteritwasextraneoustothepresentmatter,ortoDARABv.Lubrica (G.R.
No. 159145) and Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No. 157903). Land Bank and Suntay (and his
assignee Josefina Lubrica) were not parties in Land Bank v. Martinez, rendering the
pronouncementinapplicabletothemnow.

Atbest,LandBankv.Martinezmayonlyguidetheresolutionofsimilarcontroversies,but
only prospectively. We note that Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No. 157903) was promulgated in
October 11, 2007, while Land Bank v. Martinez was promulgated on July 31, 2008. The rule
followedinthisjurisdictionisthatajudicialinterpretationthatvariesfromorreversesanotheris
appliedprospectivelyandshouldnotapplytopartieswhoreliedontheolddoctrineandactedin
goodfaith.Toholdotherwiseistodeprivethelawofitsqualityoffairnessandjustice,for,then,
[83]
thereisnorecognitionofwhathadtranspiredpriortosuchadjudication.

Accordingly,ifposteriorchangesindoctrinesoftheCourtcannotretroactivelybeapplied
[84]
tonullifyapriorfinalrulinginthesameproceedingwheretheprioradjudicationwashad,
we have stronger reasons to hold that such changes could not apply to a different proceeding
withadifferentsetofpartiesandfacts.
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376

Suntay is also incorrect to insinuate that a modification or reversal of a final and
executorydecisionrenderedbyadivisionoftheCourtwouldbevalidonlyifdonebytheCourt
[85]
en banc. Such insinuation runs afoul of the well settled doctrine of immutability of
judgments. Moreover, although ArticleVIII, Section 4 (1) of the Constitution gives the Court
[86]
the discretion to sit either en banc or in divisions of three, five, or seven Members, the
divisions are not considered separate and distinct courts. Nor is a hierarchy of courts thereby
establishedwithintheSupremeCourt,whichremainsaunitnotwithstandingthatitalsoworksin
divisions.Theactionstakenandthedecisionsrenderedbyanyofthedivisionsarethoseofthe
Courtitself,consideringthatthedivisionsarenotconsideredseparateanddistinctcourtsbutas
[87]
divisionsofoneandthesamecourt. Lastly,theonlythingthattheConstitutionallowsthe
banctodointhisregardistoreversea doctrineorprincipleoflawlaiddownbytheCourten
[88]
bancorindivision.

II.c.
PronouncementinDARABv.Lubrica
(G.R.No.159145)wasamereobiterdictum

In Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) v. Lubrica (G.R. No.
159145),theDARABassignedaserroneousinitspetitionthefollowingrulingsoftheCA:(a)
thatDARAB,beingaformalparty,shouldnothavefiledacommenttothepetition,for,instead,
thecommentshouldhavebeenfiledbycorespondentLandBankasthefinancialintermediary
of CARP (b) that DARAB had no jurisdiction over DSCA 0252, a special civil action for
certiorari and (c) that the writ of preliminary injunction DARAB had issued in DSCA 0252
[89]
wasnullandvoidforhavingbeeninviolationoftheTROoftheCA.

ItisevidentthattheonlyissuesconsideredandresolvedinDARABv.Lubrica(G.R.No.
159145) were: (a) the personality of DARAB to participate and file comment (b) the
jurisdiction of DARAB over petitions for certiorari and (c) the validity of the preliminary
injunctionitissued.ItisequallyevidentthatatnotimeinDARABv.Lubrica(G.R.No.159145)
did the finality of RARAD Mias decision become the issue, precisely because the finality of
RARADMiasdecisionhadbeenputinissueinsteadinLandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903),
a suit filed ahead of DARAB v. Lubrica (G.R. No. 159145). In short, the question about the
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
finality of RARAD Mias decision was itself the lis mota in Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No.
157903).

Inviewoftheforegoing,SuntaysinvocationofthepronouncementinDARABv.Lubrica
(G.R. No. 159145), to the effect that RARAD Mias decision had attained finality upon the
failure of Land Bank to appeal within the 15day reglementary period, was unfounded and
ineffectualbecausethepronouncementwasamereobiterdictum.

Anobiterdictumhasbeendefinedasanopinionexpressedbyacourtuponsomequestion
of law that is not necessary in the determination of the case before the court. It is a remark
made, or opinion expressed, by a judge, in his decision upon a cause by the way, that is,
incidentallyorcollaterally,andnotdirectlyuponthequestionbeforehim,oruponapointnot
necessarilyinvolvedinthedeterminationofthecause,orintroducedbywayofillustration,or
[90]
analogyorargument. Itdoesnotembodytheresolutionordeterminationofthecourt,andis
[91]
made without argument, or full consideration of the point. It lacks the force of an
adjudication,beingamereexpressionofanopinionwithnobindingforceforpurposesofres
[92]
judicata.

II.d.
Suntaywasestoppedfromdenying
beingawareofexistenceofthejudgment
inLandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903)

Suntay cannot deny or evade the adverse effect and conclusiveness of the adverse
decision in Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No. 157903). He was aware of it due to his having
activelyparticipatedtherein.IntheRTC,hehadfiledthemotiontodismissagainstLandBanks
petitionfordeterminationofjustcompensation.IntheCA,hefiledamotionforreconsideration
against the adverse decision of the CA, which ultimately favored him by reconsidering the
adversedecision.InthisCourt,heactivelydefendedtheCAsselfreversal,includingfilingan
omnibus motion for partial reconsideration/clarification after the Court rendered its decision
datedOctober11,2007.Inviewofhisactiveparticipationinvariousstages,hecannotnowturn
his back on the judgment in Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No. 157903) simply because it was
adversetohiminordertoinvokeinsteadthefavorablerulinginDARABv.Lubrica(G.R.No.
159145).

5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
III.
Whetherornotthemannerofexecutionof
RARADMiasorderdatedOctober30,2008waslawful

The writs of execution issued by RARAD Mias and the manner of their enforcement by the
DARABsheriffsdidnotaccordwiththeapplicablelawandtherulesofDARABhence,they
wereinvalidandineffectual.

III.a.
OrderofOctober30,2008toresumeexecution
wasinvalidbecausetherewasnothingtoresume

InLandBankv.Suntay(G.R.No.157903),theCourtdirectedthepartiesonOctober24,
2005tomaintainthestatusquopriortotheissuanceofthealiaswritofexecution,holdingthat
allactionsdoneincomplianceorinconnectionwiththealiaswritofexecutionwereDEEMED
[93]
QUASHED,andtherefore,ofnoforceandeffect.

OnOctober25,2005,RARADMiasherselfquashedtheactsdonepursuanttoherwritof
execution, declaring that all actions done in compliance or in connection with the xxx Writ
[94]
issuedbyherareDEEMEDQUASHED,andtherefore,ofnoforceandeffect.

As a result, the following acts done in compliance with or pursuant to the writ of execution
issuedexpartebyRARADMiasonSeptember14,2005wereexpresslyquashedandrendered
ofnoforceandeffect,towit:

1. The DARAB sheriffs issuance on September 15, 2005 of (a) the notice of
demand against Land Bank (b) the notice of levy on September 21, 2005 to
Land Bank (c) the notice of levy on September 28, 20005 to Bank of the
Philippine Islands and to Hongkong Shanghai Bank Corporation and (d) an
order to deliver on October 5, 2005, addressed to Land Bank, so much of the
fundsinitscustodysufficienttosatisfythefinaljudgment
2. The holding by the DARAB sheriffs of the public auction sale on October 24,
2005involvingtheleviedPLDTandMERALCOsharesofstockofLandBank
attheOfficeoftheRegionalClerkofDARABinMandaluyongCity,wherein
Lubricawasthehighestbidder

3. The resumption on October 25, 2005 by the DARAB sheriffs of the public
auction sale of some of Land Banks remaining PLDT shares and First Gen
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
Corp.bonds,whereinLubricawasalsodeclaredthehighestbidderand

4.TheissuanceonOctober25,2005bytheDARABsheriffsoftwocertificatesof
saleinfavorofLubricaasthehighestbidder.

Inviewoftheforegoing,theorderissuedonOctober30,2008byRARADMiasdirecting
the DARAB sheriffs to resume the interrupted executions of the Alias Writ issued xxx on
[95]
September 14, 2005 was not legally effective and valid because there was no longer any
existingvalidprioractsorproceedingstoresumeenforcementorexecutionof.

Consequently,thefollowingactsdonebyvirtueofRARADMiasOctober30,2008order
toresumetheimplementationoftheSeptember15,2005writofexecutionwerebereftoffactual
andlegalbases,towit:

1.TheDARABsheriffsserviceonPDTCandSTSIofademandtocomply dated
October30,2008

2.LetterofPDTCdatedOctober31,2008informingLandBankofthedemandto
comply and the action it had taken, and requesting Land Bank to uplift the
securities

3.PDTCsmanifestationandcompliancedatedOctober31,2008filedintheoffice
oftheRARAD,RegionIV,stating,amongothers,thatPDTChadalreadyissued
awrittennoticetoLandBanktouplifttheassetsinvolvedandthatPDTChas
causedthesubjectassetstobeoutsidethedispositionofLandBankand

4. MERALCOs cancellation on November 28, 2008 of Land Banks 42,002,750
shares, its issuance of new stock certificates in the name of Lubrica, and its
subsequentrecordingofthetransferofownershipofthestocksinthecompanys
stockandtransferbook.

III.b.
LevyofLandBanksMERALCO
shareswasvoidandineffectual

A further cause that invalidated the execution effected against Land Banks MERALCO
shares derived from the statutory and reglementary provisions governing the payment of any
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
awardforjustcompensation.Attheoutset,weholdthatLandBanksliabilityundertheCARP
wastobesatisfiedonlyfromtheARF.

The ARF was first envisioned in Proclamation No. 131 issued on July 22, 1987 by
President Aquino to institute the Governments centerpiece Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program,towit:

Section2.AgrarianReformFund.Thereisherebycreatedaspecialfund,tobeknownas
theAgrarianReformfund,aninitialamountofFIFTYBILLIONPESOS(P50,000,000,000.00)
tocovertheestimatedcostoftheComprehensiveAgrarianReformProgramfrom1987to1992
whichshallbesourcedfromthereceiptsofthesaleoftheassetsoftheAssetPrivatizationTrust
receiptsofillgottenwealthreceivedthroughthePresidentialCommissiononGoodGovernment
and such other sources as government may deem appropriate. The amounts collected and
accruing to this special fund shall be considered automatically appropriated for the purpose
authorizedinthisproclamation.

ExecutiveOrderNo.229implementedthecreationoftheARF,viz:

Section20.AgrarianReformFund.AsprovidedinProclamationNo.131datedJuly22,
1987,aspecialfundiscreated,knownasTheAgrarianReformFund,aninitialamountofFIFTY
BILLION PESOS (P50 billion) to cover the estimated cost of the CARP from 1987 to 1992
whichshallbesourcedfromthereceiptsofthesaleoftheassetsoftheAssetPrivatizationTrust
(APT)andreceiptsofthesaleofillgottenwealthrecoveredthroughthePresidentialCommission
onGoodGovernmentandsuchothersourcesasgovernmentmaydeemappropriate.Theamount
collectedandaccruingtothisspecialfundshallbeconsideredautomaticallyappropriatedforthe
purposeauthorizedinthisOrder.

InenactingtheCARL,CongressadoptedandexpandedtheARF,providinginitsSection
63,asfollows:

Section 63. Funding Source. The initial amount needed to implement this Act for the
periodoften(10)years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the AgrarianReformFund
created under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 229. Additional amounts are hereby
authorizedtobeappropriatedasandwhenneededtoaugmenttheAgrarianReformFundinorder
tofullyimplementtheprovisionsofthisAct.

Sourcesoffundingorappropriationsshallincludethefollowing:

(a)ProceedsofthesalesoftheAssetsPrivatizationTrust

(b) All receipts from assets recovered and from sale of illgotten wealth
recoveredthroughthePresidentialCommissiononGoodGovernment

(c) Proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign
countries

5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
(d)PortionofamountsaccruingtothePhilippinesfromallsourcesorofficial
foreignaidgrantsandconcessionalfinancingfromallcountries,tobeusedforthe
specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructures, and other
supportservicesrequiredbythisAct

(e)Othergovernmentfundsnototherwiseappropriated.

All funds appropriated to implement the provisions of this Act shall be considered continuing
appropriationsduringtheperiodofitsimplementation.(emphasessupplied)

Subsequently, Republic Act No. 9700 amended the CARL in order to strengthen and
extendtheCARP.ItisnotablethatSection21ofRepublicActNo.9700expresslyprovidedthat
alljustcompensationpaymentstolandowners,includingexecutionofjudgmentstherefore,shall
only be sourced from the Agrarian Reform Fund and that just compensation payments that
cannotbecoveredwithintheapprovedannualbudgetoftheprogramshallbechargeableagainst
thedebtserviceprogramofthenationalgovernment,oranyunprogrammeditemintheGeneral
AppropriationsAct.
TheenactmentsoftheLegislaturedecreedthatthemoneytobepaidtothelandowneras
just compensation for the taking of his land is to be taken only from the ARF. As such, the
liabilityisnotthepersonalliabilityofLandBank,butitsliabilityonlyastheadministratorof
theARF.Infact,Section10,Rule19ofthe2003DARABRulesofProcedure,reiteratesthatthe
satisfactionofajudgmentforjustcompensationbywritofexecutionshouldbefromtheARFin
thecustodyofLandBank,towit:

Section10.Execution of judgments for Just Compensation which have become Final and
Executory.TheSheriffshallenforceawritofexecutionofafinaljudgmentforcompensation
bydemandingforthepaymentoftheamountstatedinthewritofexecutionincashandbonds
againsttheAgrarianReformFundinthecustodyofLBP[LandBankofthePhilippines]in
accordancewithRA6657xxx.(Emphasessupplied)

Consequently, the immediate and indiscriminate levy by the DARAB sheriffs of Land
BanksMERALCOshares,withoutfirstdeterminingwhetherornotsuchassetsformedpartof
theARF,disregardedLandBanksproprietaryrightsinitsownfundsandproperties.

ThepriordeterminationofwhethertheassetofLandBanksoughttobeleviedtorespond
toajudgmentliabilityundertheCARPinfavorofthelandownerwasdemandedbyitsbeinga
[96]
banking institution created by law, possessed with universal or expanded commercial
[97] [98]
bankingpowers byvirtueofPresidentialDecreeNo.251. Asaregularbank,LandBank
is
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
[99]
underthesupervisionandregulationoftheBangkoSentralngPilipinas. Being the official
depository of Government funds, Land Bank is also invested with duties and responsibilities
[100]
relatedtotheimplementationoftheCARP,mainlyastheadministratoroftheARF. Given
its discrete functions and capacities under the laws, Land Banks assets and properties must
necessarilycomeundersegregation,namely:(a)thosearisingfromitsproprietaryfunctionsasa
regularbankingorfinancialinstitutionand(b)thosearisingfromitsbeingtheadministratorof
[101]
theARF.Indeed,ExecutiveOrderNo.267hasrequiredLandBanktosegregate accounts,
to wit: (a) corporate funds, which are derived from its banking operations and are essentially
moneys held in trust for its depositors as a financial banking institution and (b) ARF, which
comprisefundsandassetsexpresslyearmarkedfororappropriatedundertheCARLtopayfinal
[102]
awardsofjustcompensationundertheCARP.

SuntayarguesthattheMERALCOsharesofLandBankwerepartoftheARF,submitting
photocopied documents showing Land Bank to be one of the top stockholders of MERALCO
[103]
underLandBanksaccountnumber1100052533.

Land Bank disputes Suntays argument, positing that its levied MERALCO shares,
particularlythosecoveredbyStockCertificateNo.87265,StockCertificateNo.664638,Stock
CertificateNo.0707447andStockCertificateNo.0707448thatwerecancelledandtransferred
in favor of Lubrica, did not form part of the ARF. It explains that there are three different
accountsrelativetoitsMERALCOshares,towit:(a)TrustAccountNo.03141,whichwasthe
subject of a Custodianship Agreement it had with the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) (b)
Account titled FAO PCGG ITF MFI, which was the subject of a Custodial Safekeeping
AgreementbetweenLandBankandtheThreeManBoardfortheMERALCOPrivatization(c/o
PCGG) and (c) LBP Proprietary Account with PCD Nominee Corporation involving Stock
CertificateNo.87265,StockCertificateNo.664638,StockCertificateNo.0707447andStock
CertificateNo.0707448.ItinsiststhattheLBPProprietaryAccountwasnotpartoftheARF,
andthatitssharescoveredbyStockCertificateNo.87265,StockCertificateNo.664638,Stock
CertificateNo.0707447,andStockCertificateNo.0707448hadbeenacquiredorobtainedin
[104]
theexerciseofitsproprietaryfunctionasauniversalbank.

LandBankpresentedcopiesoftheCustodianshipAgreementwiththeAPT,theCustodial
Safekeeping Agreement with the ThreeMan Board for the MERALCO Privatization (c/o
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
PCGG),andthejointaffidavitofLandBanksofficers.

In light of the clarifications by Land Bank, the Court concludes that the procedure of
executionadoptedbytheDARABsheriffsthoroughlydisregardedtheexistenceofLandBanks
proprietaryaccountseparateanddistinctfromtheARF.Theproceduretherebycontravenedthe
various pertinent laws and rules earlier adverted to and which the DARAB sheriffs were
presumed to be much aware of, denying to the DARAB sheriffs any presumption in the
regularityoftheirperformanceoftheirduties.
AlsosignificantisthatSection20ofExecutiveOrderNo.229hasmandatedthattheARF
shallbesourcedfromthereceiptsofthesaleoftheassetsoftheAPTandreceiptsofthesaleof
illgottenwealthrecoveredthroughthePCGGandsuchothersourcesasgovernmentmaydeem
appropriate and that Section 63 of the CARL has authorized that additional amounts be
appropriatedasandwhenneededtoaugmenttheARF.

Itshouldnotbedifficulttoseethemarkeddistinctionbetweenproceeds or receipts, on
onehand,andasset or wealth derived from such proceeds or receipts, on the other hand. The
termproceedsreferstotheamountproceedingoraccruingfromsomepossessionortransaction,
[105] [106]
andissynonymoustoproduct,income,yield,receipts,orreturns. Clearly, therefore,
theARFwassourcedfromthemoneyorcashrealizedeitherfromthesaleoforasincomefrom
the assets or properties held by the APT or the PCGG. The levied MERALCO shares were
neither proceeds nor receipts. Thus, the DARAB sheriffs had no authority to indiscriminately
levysuchsharesbecausetheywereclearlynotpartoftheARF.

Moreover,theDARABsheriffsdidnotstrictlycomplywiththeruleinforceatthetimeof
theirexecutionofthewritofexecutionandthealiaswritofexecution,whichwasSection10,
Rule19ofthe2003DARABRulesofProcedure,viz:

Section10.ExecutionofjudgmentsforJustCompensationWhichHaveBecomeFinaland
Executory.TheSheriffshallenforceawritofexecutionofafinaljudgmentforcompensation
bydemandingforthepaymentoftheamountstatedinthewritofexecutionincashandbonds
againsttheAgrarianReformFund in the custody of LBP [Land Bank of the Philippines] in
accordance with RA 6657, and the LBP shall pay the same in accordance with the final
judgment and the writ of execution within five (5) days from the time the landowner
accordinglyexecutesandsubmitstotheLBPthecorrespondingdeed/softransferinfavor
ofthegovernmentandsurrendersthemunimentsoftitletothepropertyinaccordancewith
Section15(c)ofRA6657.(Emphasissupplied)

5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
Astherulereveals,aconditionwasimposedbeforeLandBankcouldbemadetopaythe
landownerbythesheriff.TheconditionwasforSuntayasthelandownertofirstsubmittoLand
Bank the corresponding deed of transfer in favor of the Government and to surrender the
munimentsofthetitletohisaffectedproperty.Yet,byimmediatelyanddirectlylevyingonthe
shares of stocks of Land Bank and forthwith selling them at a public auction to satisfy the
amountsstatedintheassailedwritswithoutfirstrequiringSuntaytocomplywiththecondition,
theDARABsheriffsunmitigatedlyviolatedthe2003DARABRulesofProcedure.

Relevantly, Section 18 of the CARL, which Section 10 of the 2003 DARAB Rules of
Procedureimplements,hasexpresslylistedthemodesbywhichthelandownermaychooseto
bepaidhisjustcompensation,thus:

Section 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. The LBP shall compensate the
landownerinsuchamountasmaybeagreeduponbythelandownerandtheDARandLBPoras
maybefinallydeterminedbythecourtasjustcompensationfortheland.
The compensation shall be paid in one of the following modes at the option of the
landowner:
(1)Cashpayment,underthefollowingtermsandconditions:
(a) For lands above fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is concerned
Twentyfive percent (25%) cash, the balance to be paid in government financial
instrumentsnegotiableatanytime.

(b) For lands above twentyfour hectares and up to fifty (50) hectares Thirty percent
(30%)cash,thebalancetobepaidingovernmentfinancialinstrumentsnegotiableatany
time.

(c)Forlandstwentyfour(24)hectaresandbelowThirtyfivepercent(35%)cash,the
balancetobepaidingovernmentfinancialinstrumentsnegotiableatanytime.

(2) Shares of stock in governmentowned or controlled corporations, LBP preferred shares,
physicalassetsorotherqualifiedinvestmentsinaccordancewithguidelinessetbythePARC
(3)Taxcreditswhichcanbeusedagainstanytaxliability
(4)LBPbonds,whichshallhavethefollowingfeatures:
(a)Marketinterestratesalignedwith91daytreasurybillrates.Tenpercent(10%)ofthe
facevalueofthebondsshallmatureeveryyearfromthedateofissuanceuntilthetenth
(10th) year: Provided, That should the landowner choose to forego the cash portion,
whetherinfullorinpart,heshallbepaidcorrespondinglyinLBPbonds

(b)Transferabilityandnegotiability.SuchLBPbondsmaybeusedbythelandowner,his
successorsininterest or his assigns, up to the amount of their face value for anyofthe
following:

(i)Acquisitionoflandorotherrealpropertiesofthegovernment,includingassetsunder
the Assets Privatization Program and other assets foreclosed by government financial
institutioninthesameprovinceorregionwherethelandsforwhichthebondswerepaid
aresituated

5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
(ii) Acquisition of shares of stock of governmentowned or controlled

corporations or shares or stock owned by the government in private
corporations

(iii)Substitutionforsuretyorbailbondsfortheprovisionalreleaseofaccused
persons,orforperformancebonds

(iv) Security for loans with any government financial institution, provided the
proceedsoftheloansshallbeinvestedinaneconomicenterprise,preferablyina
smallandmediumscaleindustry,inthesameprovinceorregionasthelandfor
whichthebondsarepaid

(v) Payment for various taxes and fees to the government: Provided, That the
useofthesebondsforthesepurposeswillbelimitedtoacertainpercentageof
theoutstandingbalanceofthefinancialinstrument:Provided,further,That the
PARCshalldeterminethepercentagesmentionedabove

(vi)Paymentfortuitionfeesoftheimmediatefamilyoftheoriginalbondholder
ingovernmentuniversities,colleges,tradeschoolsandotherinstitutions

(vii) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in
governmenthospitalsand

(viii)SuchotherusesasthePARCmayfromtimetotimeallow.

Incaseofextraordinaryinflation,thePARCshalltakeappropriatemeasurestoprotectthe
economy.(Emphasessupplied)

We note that the DARAB sheriffs method of execution did not adhere to any of the
legallyauthorizedmodes,totheextremedetrimentofLandBank.

Still,SuntayproposesthattheresorttolevyingontheMERALCOsharesofLandBank
wasnecessary,consideringthatitwasLandBankalonethathadthecontroloftheARF.

Thepropositionisnotonlyincorrectbutalsodangerous.

Tostartwith,LandBankcouldnotsimplyshirkfromorevadedischargingitsobligations
[107]
under the CARP because the law mandated Land Bank with a positive duty. The
performanceofitsministerialdutytofullypayalandownerthejustcompensationcouldsubject
itsofficialsresponsibleforthenonperformancetopunishmentforcontemptofcourt.

And, secondly, tolerating the irregular execution carried out by the DARAB sheriffs
wouldbedangeroustotheviabilityofLandBankasaregularbankinginstitutionaswellasthe
administrator of the ARF. The total claim of Suntay under the assailed RARAD decision was
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
only P157.5 million, but the worth of Land Banks 53,557,257 MERALCO shares, 912,230
PLDTsharesandFirstGenCorporationbondsauctionedoffbytheDARABsheriffsatP1.00
/share for the total of only P53,557,257.00 was probably about P841 million. If that probable
worth was true, the levy and execution were patently unconscionable and definitely worked
againsttheinterestoftheGovernmentrepresentedbyLandBank.

Further,Suntaycomplainsofthedelayinthepaymentofjustcompensationduetohim.

TheCourtfindsthatSuntayhasonlyhimselftoblame.Asearlyasin2005LandBankv.
Suntay (G.R. No. 157903) already opened the way for the RTC to determine the just
compensationinAgrarianCaseNo.R1241.HadheensuredthespeedydispositionofAgrarian
CaseNo.R1241intheRTC,hewouldnotnowbecomplaining.

IV.
LandBankisentitledtoall
dividendspertainingtothe
invalidlyleviedsharesofMERALCO

Asearliermentioned,LandBankfiledonMay5,2010anurgentverifiedmotionforthe
issuance of a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin MERALCO, its Corporate
Secretary, and its Assistant Corporate Secretary, pending the proceedings and until the
resolution of the case, from releasing the cash dividends pertaining to the disputed shares in
favorofLubricaoranypersonactingonherbehalf.

AlthoughtheCourtdidnotresolvethemotion,itistimetolookintothematterinlightof
theforegoingconclusions.

The Court has to declare as a necessary consequence of the foregoing conclusions that
Land Bank remained fully entitled to all the cash and other dividends accruing to the
MERALCO shares levied and sold by the DARAB sheriffs pursuant to the orders issued on
September14,2005andOctober30,2008byRARADMias,asifnolevyandsaleofthemwere
made.Inthisconnection,theCourtaffirmsandreiteratestheorderissuedonOctober25,2005
by RARAD Mias (deeming to be quashed and of no force and effect all actions done in
[108]
complianceorinconnectionwiththewritofexecutionissuedbyher), andtheorderissued
onDecember17,2008byRARADCasabardirecting:
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376

(c)MERALCOtocancelthestockcertificatesissuedtoLubricaandtoanyofhertransfereesor
assignees, and to restore the ownership of the shares to Land Bank and to record the
restorationinMERALCOsstockandtransferbookand

(d) PSE,PDTC,STSI,thePhilippineDealingSystemHoldingsCorporationandSubsidiaries
(PDSGroup),andanystockbroker,dealer,oragentofMERALCOsharestostoptradingor
[109]
dealingontheshares.

WHEREFORE,weGRANTthepetitionforreviewoncertiorari, and REVERSE the
DecisionpromulgatedJune5,2009inCAG.R.SPNo.106104.

ACCORDINGLY,theCourt:

(a) DIRECTStheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch46,inSanJose,OccidentalMindoroto
continue the proceedings for the determination of the just compensation of Federico Suntays
expropriatedpropertyinAgrarianCaseNo.R1241

(b)QUASHESandNULLIFIEStheordersissuedinDARABCaseNo.V0405000100
onSeptember14,2005(grantingSuntaysexparte motion for the issuance of an alias writ of
execution)andOctober30,2008byRARADConchitaC.Mias(directingtheDARABsheriffs
toresumetheinterruptedexecutionoftheAliasWritinthiscaseonSeptember14,2005),and
allactsperformedpursuantthereto

(c) AFFIRMS and REITERATES the order issued on October 25, 2005 by RARAD
Mias (deeming to be quashed and of no force and effect all actions done in compliance or in
connectionwiththewritofexecutionissuedbyher),andtheorderissuedonDecember17,2008
by RARAD Marivic Casabar (directing MERALCO to cancel the stock certificates issued to
JosefinaLubricaandtoanyofhertransfereesorassignees,andtorestoretheownership ofthe
sharestoLandBankandtorecordtherestorationinMERALCOsstockandtransferbookand
the Philippine Stock Exchange, Philippine Depository and Trust Corporation, Securities
Transfer Services, Inc., and the Philippine Dealing System Holdings Corporation and
Subsidiaries(PDSGroup),andanystockbroker,dealer,or agentofMERALCOsharestostop
tradingordealingontheshares)

(d) DECLARES Land Bank fully entitled to all the dividends accruing to its levied
MERALCOsharesofstocksasifnolevyonexecutionandauctionweremadeinvolvingsuch
sharesofstocks
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376

(e) COMMANDS the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to investigate the actuations of
Atty. Conchita C. Mias in DARAB Case No. V0405000100, and to determine if she was
administrativelyliableasamemberofthePhilippineBarand

(f) ORDERS the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board to conduct a
thorough investigation of the sheriffs who participated in the irregularities noted in this
Decision,andtoproceedagainstthemifwarranted.

Costsagainsttherespondent.

SOORDERED.

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROMARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
G.R.No.157903,October11,2007,535SCRA605.
[2]
Id.,pp.607609.
[3]
Id.
[4]
DepartmentofAgrarianReformAdjudicationBoardv.Lubrica,G.R.No.159145,April29,2005,457SCRA800,805.
[5]
Id.
[6]
Supraatnote1,pp.608609.
[7]
[8]
Id.,p.807.
[9]
Id.,pp.807808.
[10]
Id.,p.808.
[11]
Id.,pp.808809.
[12]
Id.,p.814.
[13]
Supraatnote1,p.609.
[14]
Id.,pp.609610.
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
[15]
Id.,p.610.
[16]
Id.,pp.610611.
[17]
Id.
[18]
Id.,p.611.
[19]
Rollo,pp.284305.
[20]
Supra,note1,p.612.
[21]
Supra,note1,pp.612617.
[22]
Emphasesarepartoftheoriginaltext.
[23]
Rollo,pp.357374.
[24]
Id.,p.112.
[25]
InDARABv.Lubrica,citedatnote4,theCourt,inadditiontodeclaringthatDARABhadnojurisdictionoverapetitionfor
certiorari,commentedthat:
Intheinstantcase,LandBankreceivedacopyoftheRARADorderdenyingitsmotionforreconsiderationonMarch26,2001.
Land Bank filed the petition for just compensation with the special agrarian court only on April20,2001, which is doubtlessly
beyondthefifteendayreglementaryperiod.Thus,theRARADDecisionhadalreadyattainedfinalityinaccordancewiththeabove
quotedrule,notwithstandingLandBanksrecoursetothespecialagrariancourt.
[26]
Rollo,pp.311312.
[27]
Id.,p.313.
[28]
Id.,pp.314315.
[29]
Id.,pp.316317.
[30]
Id.,pp.318319.
[31]
Id.,p.347.
[32]
Id.,p,349.
[33]
Id.,p.351.
[34]
Id.,p.352.
[35]
Id.,pp.355356.
[36]
Supraatnote1,p.617.
[37]
Rollo,pp.375378.
[38]
Id.,p.390.
[39]
Id.,pp.401402.
[40]
Id.,pp.399400.
[41]
Id.,pp.395398.
[42]
Id.,pp.409413.
[43]
Id.,pp.414415.
[44]
Id.,pp.416417.
[45]
Id.,pp.418474.
[46]
Id.,pp.481496.
[47]
Id.,pp.590591.
[48]
Id.,pp.497498.
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
[49]
Id.,pp.499506.
[50]
Id.,pp.590591.
[51]
Id.,pp.548562.
[52]
Id.,pp.563574.
[53]
Id.,pp.585589.
[54]
Id.,p.120.
[55]
Id.,pp.593597.
[56]
Id.,pp.598601.
[57]
Id.,pp.173188.
[58]
Id.,pp.37.
[59]
Id.,pp.6571.
[60]
Id.,pp.604613
[61]
Id.,pp.7683.
[62]
Id.,pp.84165.
[63]
Id.,pp.614615.
[64]
Id., pp. 649651 (penned by Associate Justice Mariflor PunzalanCastillo, and concurred in by Associate Justice Rosmari
CarandangandAssociateJusticeMarleneGonzalesSison),
[65]
Id.,pp.621625.
[66]
Rollo,pp.808836.
[67]
Id.,pp.889915.
[68]
Id.,pp.127128.
[69]
Id.,p.687.
[70]
Id.,p.185(boldemphasissupplied).
[71]
Rollo,pp.439440.
[72]
BancoFilipinoSavingsandMortgageBankv.Tuazon,Jr.,G.R.No.132795,March10,2004,425SCRA129,134.
[73]
G.R.Nos.171396,171400,171409,171483,171485,171489,and171424,May3,2006,489SCRA160,214215.
[74]
G.R.Nos.183591,183752,183893,183951and183962,October14,2008,568SCRA402,461,citingUSv.W.T.GrantCo.,
345U.S.629(1953)USv.TransMissouriFreightAssn,166U.S.290,308310(1897)Wallingv.Helmerich&Payne,Inc.,323U.S.
37,43(1944)Grayv.Sanders,372U.S.368,376(1963)Defunisv.Odegaard,416U.S.312(1974).
[75]
Rollo,p.186.
[76]
G.R.No.169008,July31,2008,560SCRA776,783.
[77]
Italicizedportionsarepartoftheoriginaldecision.
[78]
GallardoCorrov.Gallardo,G.R.No.136228,January30,2001,350SCRA568,578.
[79]
Torresv.Sison,G.R.No.119811,August30,2001,364SCRA37,43.
[80]
[81]
G.R.No.139278,October25,2004,441SCRA290.
[82]
Id.,pp.300301.
[83]
Bersamin,AppealandReviewinthePhilippines,2nd Edition,CentralProfessionalBooks,Inc.,QuezonCity,pp.223224.
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
[84]
Lopezv.NorthwestAirlines,Inc.,G.R.No.106973,June17,1993,223SCRA469,477.
[85]
Paragraph3.03g.oftherespondentsCommentonPetitionforReviewonCertiorari(Rollo,p.688)alleges:
3.03.g. Having become final and executory, DARABv.Lubrica has become immutable and unalterable. Any subsequent
attempttomodifyorreversethesaiddecisionwouldnotonlybeineffectualbutunconstitutional,unlessitisbytheSupreme
Courtsittingenbanc.
xxxProvided,thatnodoctrineorprincipleoflawlaiddownbythecourtinadecisionrenderedenbancorindivision
maybemodifiedorreversedexceptbythecourtsittingenbanc.
[86]
Section4(1),ArticleVIIIofthe1987Constitutionprovides:
Section4(1).TheSupremeCourtshallbecomposedofaChiefJusticeandfourteenAssociateJustices.Itmaysitenbancor,inits
discretion,indivisionsofthree,fiveorsevenMembers.xxx.(Emphasissupplied)
[87]
UnitedStatesv.Limsiongco,41Phil94(1920).
[88]
Section4(3),ArticleVIIIofthe1987Constitutionsays:
xxx
(3)CasesormattersheardbyadivisionshallbedecidedorresolvedwiththeconcurrenceofamajorityoftheMemberswhoactually
tookpartinthedeliberationsontheissuesinthecaseandvotedthereon,andinnocase,withouttheconcurrenceofatleastthreeof
suchMembers.Whentherequirednumberisnotobtained,thecaseshallbedecidedenbancProvided,thatnodoctrineorprinciple
oflawlaiddownbythecourtinadecisionrenderedenbancorindivisionmaybemodifiedorreversedexceptbythecourtsittingen
banc.(Emphasissupplied)
[89]
Supraatnote3,p.809.
[90]
DeltaMotorsCorporationv.C.A.,G.R.No.121075,July24,1997,276SCRA212,223.
[91]
OfficeoftheOmbudsmanv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.146486,March4,2005,452SCRA714,733734.
[92]
CityofManilavs.Entote,No.L24776,June28,1974,57SCRA497,508509.
[93]
Id.,p,349.
[94]
Id.,pp.355356.
[95]
Rollo,p.390.
[96]
RepublicActNo.3844(AgriculturalLandReformCode).
[97]
Section23ofRepublicActNo.8791(GeneralBankingActof2000)provides:
Section23.PowersofaUniversalBank.Auniversalbankshallhavetheauthoritytoexercise,inadditiontothepowersauthorized
foracommercialbankinSection29,thepowersofaninvestmenthouseasprovidedinexistinglawsandthepowertoinvestinnon
alliedenterprisesasprovidedinthisAct.(21B)
[98]
Section2ofPresidentialDecreeNo.251expandedthepowersoftheLandBank,thus:
Section2.SectionseventyfiveofthesameActisherebyamendedtoreadasfollows:
Sec.75.PowersinGeneral.Thebankshallhavethepower:
xxx
8.Tounderwrite,hold,own,purchase,acquire,sell,mortgage,disposeorotherwiseinvestorreinvestinstocks,bonds,
debentures, securities and other evidences of indebtedness of other corporations and of the government or its
instrumentalitieswhichareissuedfororinconnectionwithanyprojectorenterprise
xxx
12. To exercise the general powers mentioned in the Corporation Law and the General Banking Act, as amended,
insofarastheyarenotinconsistentorincompatiblewiththisDecree.
[99]
Section21ofPresidentialDecreeNo.251states:
Section21.SectionninetysevenofthesameActisherebyamendedtoreadasfollows:
Sec.97.CentralBankSupervision.TheBankshallbeunderthesupervisionandregulationoftheCentralBankofthe
Philippines.
[100]
Section64ofRepublicActNo.6657provides:
Sec.64.FinancialIntermediaryfortheCARP.TheLandBankofthePhilippinesshallbethefinancialintermediaryfortheCARP,
andshallinsurethatthesocialjusticeobjectivesoftheCARPshallenjoyapreferenceamongitspriorities.
[101]
ExecutiveOrderNo.267entitledProvidingfortheIssuanceofNationalGovernmentBindstobeKnownasAgrarianReform
(AR)Bonds(issuedonJuly25,1995)provides:
5/27/2017 G.R.No.188376
NOW,THEREFORE,I,FIDELV.RAMOS,PresidentofthePhilippines,byvirtueofthepowersvestedinmebylaw,do
herebyorder:
xxx
2.ThesegregationoftheaccountsofCARPrelatedtransactionsinthebooksofaccountmaintainedbytheLandBank
ofthePhilippines,exceptthosespecificallyshoulderedbytheLandBankofthePhilippinesand
xxx
Intheimplementationofthisorder:
xxx
c)Separate financial statements and records will be maintained for CARPrelated transactions and the LBP will be
responsiblefortheadministrationofalltheARFfundsentrustedtoitorbroughtunderitscontrol.(emphasissupplied)
[102]
Rollo,pp.827828.
[103]
Id.,p.904.
[104]
Id.,pp.955959.(thisisaprovisionalpaginationonlyseepp.59ofLandBanksReply(Re:VerifiedOppositiontoLNPs
Motion/ApplicationforIssuanceofTRO)).
[105]
WordsandPhrases,Vol.34,p.205,citingStateex.Rel.Ledwithv.Brian,120N.W.916,917,84Neb.30.
[106]
Id.,p.210,citingFurst&Thomasv.Elliott,56P.2d1064,1068,56Idaho,491.
[107]
Badillov.Tayag,G.R.Nos.143976and145846,April3,2003,400SCRA494,502504.
[108]
Rollo,pp.355356.
[109]
Id.,pp.598601.

Political - LBP Vs Suntay

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Political - LBP Vs Suntay

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

5/27/2017 G.R.No.

(ii) Acquisition of shares of stock of governmentowned or controlled

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi