Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J : p
Apo Fruits Corporation (AFC) and Hijo Plantation, Inc. (HPI) are the registered
owners of five parcels of agricultural lands located in San Isidro, Tagum, Davao
Province, to wit:
T-113359 2 115.2179
T-113366 3 525.1304
T-10361155.8408
T-10362170.7980
T-10363478.8920 5
On 12 October 1995, AFC and HPI voluntarily offered to sell the above parcels of
land to the government. 6 After the initial processing at the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) of the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) 7 application of AFC
and HPI, it was referred to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) for initial
valuation. On 16 October 1996, AFC and HPI received separately from the DAR's
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Davao province a notice of land
acquisition and valuation, informing AFC that the value of the properties has
been placed at P86,900,925.88 or P165,484.47 per hectare 8 while HPI's
properties were valued at P164,478,178.14. 9 Both AFC and HPI considered the
valuations unreasonably low and inadequate as just compensation for the
properties.
On 5 November 1996, AFC rejected the valuation for both TCTs No. T-113366
and No. 113359. 10 AFC applied for the shifting of the mode of acquisition for TCT
No. 113359 11 from VOS to Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment
Scheme. 12 HPI also rejected the valuation of its three parcels of land covered by
TCTs No. T-10361, No. T-10362 and No. T-10363. 13
Owing to the rejection by both AFC and HPI of LBP's valuation, the DAR
requested LBP to deposit the amounts equivalent to their valuations in the
names and for the accounts of AFC and HPI. 14 AFC thereafter withdrew the
amount of P26,409,549.86, while HPI withdrew the amount of P45,481,706.76,
both in cash from LBP. The DAR PARO then directed the Register of Deeds of
Davao to cancel the TCTs of AFC and HPI to the said properties and to issue a
new one in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
After the issuance of the certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines, the Register of Deeds of Davao, upon the request of the DAR, issued
TCTs and Certificates of Land Ownership Award to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
On 14 February 1997, AFC and HPI filed separate complaints for determination
of just compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). Despite the
lapse of more than three years from the filing of the complaints, the DARAB
failed and refused to render a decision on the valuation of the land. Hence, two
complaints 15 for determination and payment of just compensation were filed by
AFC and HPI before Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City
(acting as a Special Agrarian Court), which were subsequently consolidated.
Agrarian Case No. 54-2000 16 filed by AFC covers two parcels of land in San
Isidro, Tagum, Davao, with an aggregate area of 640.3483 hectares previously
assessed by LBP with a valuation of P86,900,925.88.
On the other hand, Agrarian Case No. 55-2000 17 filed by HPI relates to the other
three parcels of land in Tagum City, with a total area of 814.5308 hectares,
likewise, previously assessed by LBP with a valuation of P164,478,178.14. DIcSHE
Summons was served on 23 May 2000 to defendants DAR and LBP. The trial
court appointed as Commissioners 18 persons it considered competent, qualified
and disinterested to determine the proper valuation of the properties.
LBP submitted its Answer on 26 July 2000, 19 while the DAR Secretary,
represented by PARO Pedro P. Gumabao, filed its Answer 20 on 18 August 2000.
After hearing, the trial court rendered a decision 26 dated 25 September 2001,
the fallo thereof reads:
In an Order dated 5 December 2001, 29 the trial court modified its decision as
follows:
Subsequently, the trial court, citing this Court's ruling in the case of " Land Bank
of the Philippines v. De Leon," 33 that a petition for review, not an ordinary
appeal, is the proper mode of appeal from a decision on the determination of
just compensation rendered by a special agrarian court, issued an Order dated 4
November 200234 recalling its Order dated 15 May 2002 and directed LBP to file a
Petition for Review within the reglementary period. LBP filed a Motion for
Reconsideration 35claiming that the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. De
Leon was not yet final at that time; hence, it is not certain whether the decision
in that case would have a retroactive effect and that appeal is the appropriate
remedy. This was denied by the trial court in its Order dated 12 February
2003. 36
On 28 March 2003, LBP filed a Petition for Certiorari 37 before the Court of
Appeals assailing the 4 November 2002 and 12 February 2003 orders of the trial
court.
The Court of Appeals found the petition of LBP meritorious. In a decision 38 dated
12 February 2004, the Court of Appeals held:
AFC and HPI filed a joint Motion for Reconsideration 40 which the Court of
Appeals denied in its Resolution dated 21 June 2004. 41
Earlier, on 23 January 2003, DAR filed its own separate petition before the Court
of Appeals by way of a Petition for Review. 42 In a Resolution 43 dated 2 April
2003, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition of the DAR for failure to state
the material dates under Rule 42, Section 2, 44 of the Rules of Court. The
appellate court held:
For all the foregoing, the court has no alternative but to dismiss the
petition.cSCADE
The Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Petition filed by the DAR in CA-G.R.
SP No. 74879 became final and executory and entry of judgment was issued by
the appellate court on 7 May 2003. 46
On the other hand, from the decision of the Court of Appeals in the Petition filed
by LBP in CA-G.R. SP No. 76222, AFC and HPI filed the present Petition for
Review onCertiorari raising the following issues:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
AFC and HPI pray that the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 76222 be reversed and set aside and that the Decision of the RTC
dated 25 September 2001 in Agrarian Cases No. 54-2000 and No. 55-2000 be
declared as final and executory. 48
Essentially therefore, the rule is that a decision of the RTC acting as a Special
Agrarian Court should be brought to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for
Review. The Court of Appeals will no longer entertain ordinary appeals thereon.
However, this rule applies only after the finality of the Resolution of this Court
in Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon dated 20 March 2003.
In this case, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled when it gave due course to the
appeal of LBP. LBP's Notice of Appeal was filed on 27 December 2001. This was
given due course by the RTC in an Order dated 15 May 2002. LBP's appeal was,
thus, perfected before this Court's Resolution in the aforementioned Land Bank
of the Philippines v. De Leon case. Hence, the Court of Appeals could give due
course to LBP's petition.
Next we proceed to determine the issue of whether or not the petition of LBP
before the Court of Appeals is barred by the disposition of the Petition for Review
filed by the DAR in CA-G.R. SP No. 74879 on the ground of res judicata. EHASaD
(b)The court which rendered judgment must have jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter;
Having disposed of the procedural issues involved herein, we shall now proceed
to resolve the substantive questions in this case.
This Court is aware that in the instant case, since LBP's appeal before the Court
of Appeals is to be given due course, the normal procedure is for us to remand
the case to the appellate court for further proceedings. However, when there is
enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits of petitioner's case may
be had, the Court may dispense with the time-consuming procedure in order to
prevent further delays in the disposition of the case. 53 Indeed, remand of the
case to the lower court for further reception of evidence is not conducive to the
speedy administration of justice and it becomes unnecessary where the Court is
in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it. On many
occasions, the Court, in the public interest and expeditious administration of
justice, has resolved action on the merits, instead of remanding them for further
proceedings, as where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand
of the case 54 or where the trial court had already received all the evidence of
the parties. 55 Briefly stated, a remand of the instant case to the Court of Appeals
would serve no purpose save to further delay its disposition contrary to the spirit
of fair play.
The complete records of this case have already been elevated to this Court. The
pleadings on record will fully support this adjudication. We have painstakingly
gone over all of LBP's representations and arguments, and we found that the
material and decisive facts are hardly disputable. From another perspective, due
consideration should also be given to AFC and HPI for having voluntarily offered
to sell their properties, a clear indication of AFC and HPI's willingness to
participate in the agrarian reform program of the government. In turn, they must
be given compensation that is just and timely. Records indicate that the case has
been dragging on for more than ten years now without the landowners having
been fully compensated. We cannot countenance such a glaring indifference to
AFC and HPI's rights as land owners — they should be afforded all that is just
and due them. To be sure, they deserve nothing less than full compensation to
give effect to their substantive rights.
While eminent domain lies as one of the inherent powers of the state, there is no
requirement that it undertake a prolonged procedure, or that the payment of the
private owner be protracted as far as practicable. 58
It is not controverted that this case started way back on 12 October 1995, when
AFC and HPI voluntarily offered to sell the properties to the DAR. In view of the
failure of the parties to agree on the valuation of the properties, the Complaint
for Determination of Just Compensation was filed before the DARAB on 14
February 1997. Despite the lapse of more than three years from the filing of the
complaint, the DARAB failed to render a decision on the valuation of the land.
Meantime, the titles over the properties of AFC and HPI had already been
cancelled and in their place a new certificate of title was issued in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines, even as far back as 9 December 1996. A period
of almost 10 years has lapsed. For this reason, there is no dispute that this case
has truly languished for a long period of time, the delay being mainly attributable
to both official inaction and indecision, 59 particularly on the determination of the
amount of just compensation, to the detriment of AFC and HPI, which to date,
have yet to be fully compensated for the properties which are already in the
hands of farmer-beneficiaries, who, due to the lapse of time, may have already
converted or sold the land awarded to them.
Verily, these two cases could have been disposed with dispatch were it not for
LBP's counsel causing unnecessary delay. At the inception of this case, DARAB,
an agency of the DAR which was commissioned by law to determine just
compensation, sat on the cases for three years, which was the reason that AFC
and HPI filed the cases before the RTC. We underscore the pronouncement of
the RTC that "the delay by DARAB in the determination of just compensation
could only mean the reluctance of the Department of Agrarian Reform and the
Land Bank of the Philippines to pay the claim of just compensation by corporate
landowners." 60
The two main issues, thus, for determination of this Court are the date of the
taking of the property and the amount of just compensation. 66
First, it is settled that the property was taken on 9 December 1996, when a
Certificate of Title was issued in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, and the
Certificates of Title of AFC and HPI were cancelled. The farmer-beneficiaries
themselves took possession of the subject properties on 2 January 1997. 67
The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under
their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the
case for decision.
To implement the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, Rule XIII, Section 11 of
the DARAB Rules of Procedure, provides:
The next question now crops up, who shall determine just compensation? It is
now settled that the valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a
judicial function which is vested with the RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court.
The same cannot be lodged with administrative agencies 69 and may not be
usurped by any other branch or official of the government. 70
LBP argues that the trial court's valuation of the subject landholdings has
incorporated irrelevant and/or immaterial factors such as the schedule of market
values given by the City Assessor of Tagum, the comparative sales of adjacent
lands and the commissioners' report. 71
This Court, however, notes that the comparative sales (Exhibits "A" to
"F") referred to in the Appraisal Report are sales made after the taking
of the land in 1996. However, in the offer of evidence, the plaintiff
offered additional comparative sales of adjacent land from late 1995 to
early 1997, ranging from a high of P580.00/sq.meter in September 1996
(Exhibit "L-4" for plaintiff Apo and "EE-4" for plaintiff Hijo) to a low of
P146.02/sq.meter in October 1997 (Exhibits "L-2" and "EE-2"). The
other sales in 1996 were in January 1996 for P530.00/sq.meter (Exhs.
"L-3" and "EE-3") and in December 1996 for P148.64/sq.meter (Exhs.
"L-2" and "EE-1"). On the other hand, the sale in December 1995 (Exhs.
"L-5" and "EE-5") was made for P530.00/sq.meter." The average selling
price based on the foregoing transaction is P386.93/sq.meter. The same
is even higher by around 350% than the recommended value of P85.00,
as per the Commissioners' Report.
The valuation given by Cuervo and the Appraisal Report of P84.53 and
P85.00, respectively, in this Court's judgment, is the minimum value of
the subject landholdings and definitely cannot in anyway be the price at
which plaintiffs APO and/or HIJO might be willing to sell, considering
that the parcels of land adjacent thereto were sold at much higher
prices, specifically from a low of P146.02/sq.meter to a high of P580.00.
The average of the lowest value under the 1993 and 1994 Revision of
Assessment and Property Classification (Exhibits "J-6" and "CC-6") were
already at P103.33/sq.meter, even without considering the
improvements introduced on the subject landholdings.
Moreover, the Commission made the findings that "portions of the land
subject of th(e) report may . . . increase to P330.00/sq.meter,
specifically th(e) strips of land surrounding the provincial roads" and
made the conclusion that "(c)learly, the value recommended by th(e)
Commission, which is only about P85.00/sq.meter is way below the . . .
assessed values, which effectively was fixed (as early as) 1994 or earlier
than the Voluntary Offer to Sell of the above plaintiffs' properties." In
the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the said assessed values
are presumed to be prevailing [in] December 1996, the time of taking of
plaintiffs' landholdings. The Commission further stated that the average
of the said "assessed values as submitted by the City Assessor of Tagum
City (is) P265.00/sq.meter." This Court, therefore, finds it unfair that the
just compensation for the subject landholdings should only be fixed at
P85.00/sq.meter.
Thus, the selling price of P580.00/sq. meter nor the average selling price
of P386.93/sq. meter or the average assessed value of P265.00/sq.
meter cannot be said to be the value at which defendants might be
willing to buy the subject landholdings.
This Court, therefore, finds the price of P103.33/sq. meter for the
subject landholdings fair and reasonable for all the parties. Said value is
even lower than the lowest selling price of P148.64 for sale of adjacent
land at the time of the taking of the subject landholdings [in] December
1996. It approximates, however, the average of the lowest values under
the 1993 and 1994 Revision of Assessment and Property Clarification
(Exhs. "J-6" and "CC-6") of P103.33. The said figure will further
increase, if the Court will further consider the improvements introduced
by plaintiffs, which should be the case. Moreover, the said value of
P103.33/sq. meter is more realistic as it does not depart from the
government recognized values as specified in the 1993 and 1994
Revised Assessment and Property Classification of Tagum City. This
Court finds the evidence of the plaintiffs sufficient and preponderant to
establish the value of P103.33/sq. meter. 73
The plaintiffs' agricultural properties are just a stone's throw from the
residential and/or industrial sections of Tagum City, a fact defendants-
DAR and LBP should never ignore. The market value of the property
(plus the consequential damages less consequential benefits) is
determined by such factors as the value of like properties, its actual or
potential use, its size, shape and location as enunciated in B.H.
Berkenkotter & Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 584 (1992). To
follow Defendants-DAR and LBP logic, therefore, would in effect restrict
and delimit the broad judicial prerogatives of this Court in determining
and fixing just compensation of properties taken by the State.
Contrary to LBP's claim, the above factors are neither irrelevant nor immaterial.
When the trial court arrived at the valuation of a landowner's property taking
into account its nature as irrigated land, location along the highway, market
value, assessor's value and the volume and value of its produce, such valuation
is considered in accordance with Republic Act No. 6657. 75
Even the Commissioners' report which the trial court took into consideration may
not be dismissed as irrelevant. In the first place the trial court acting as a special
agrarian court is authorized to appoint commissioners to assist in the
determination of just compensation. 76 In this case the Commissioners' report
was submitted only after ocular inspections were conducted on the landholdings
to give them a better idea of their real value. 77
Conspicuously, the trial court did not merely rely solely on the appraisal report
submitted by the Commissioners. The trial court conducted hearings for the
purpose of receiving the parties' evidence.
Clearly evident from the records of this case is that in the proceedings before the
Commission constituted by the RTC of Tagum City, Branch 2, to fix the just
compensation for the properties, the LBP and the DAR were given all the
opportunities to justify their stances. Thus:
Inspite of the lapse of the period, the LBP failed to file its position paper.
xxx xxx xxx
Given the already exhaustive analysis made by the RTC, this Court is convinced
that the trial court correctly determined the amount of just compensation due to
AFC and HPI. SCaITA
SO ORDERED.
1.Records of Agrarian Case No. 55-2000, Book I, Annex C, p. 13; Both land titles
(TCTs No. 113359 and No. 113366) were previously covered by TCT No.
50976.
2.Id. at Annex A, p. 5.
3.Id. at 6.
4.Id. at 135.
5.Rollo, p. 259.
9.Id. at 15.
10.Id. at 19.
11.Id. at 19.
(a)All notices for voluntary land transfer must be submitted to the DAR within the first
year of the implementation of the CARP. Negotiations between the landowners
and qualified beneficiaries covering any voluntary land transfer which remain
unresolved after one (1) year shall not be recognized and such land shall
instead be acquired by the government and transferred pursuant to this Act.
(b)The terms and conditions of such transfer shall not be less favorable to the
transferee than those of the government's standing offer to purchase from the
landowner and to resell to the beneficiaries, if such offers have been made and
are fully known to both parties.
(c)The voluntary agreement shall include sanctions for non-compliance by either party
and shall be duly recorded and its implementation monitored by the DAR.
14.Id. at 464.
15.Agrarian Case No. 54-2000 entitled, Apo Fruits Corporation v. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform and Land Bank of the Philippines, and Agrarian Case No. 55-
2000 entitled, Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform and Land
Bank of the Philippines.
18.Id. at 71. Appointed were: Atty. Cesar V. Arañas, Retired Provincial Assessor of
Davao Province; Retired City Assessor of Davao City; and Retired Director —
Finance, Region XI, Davao City, to act as the Chairman of the Panel of
Commissioners;
Mr. Alfredo H. Silawan, incumbent City Assessor of Tagum City, Davao del Norte, to
act as Member.
Mr. Wilfredo G. dela Cerna, incumbent City Treasurer of Tagum City, Davao del Norte,
to act as Member.
19.Id. at 93.
20.Id. at 95.
21.Id. at 188.
22.Id. at 129.
23.Id. at 181.
a)The amount of ONE BILLION ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,131,600,000.00) under the current value of the
Philippine Peso, computed as the JUST COMPENSATION for the properties
covered by these cases, to be paid jointly and severally by the Department of
Agrarian Reform and/or the Land Bank of the Philippines and deposited in an
authorized bank;
The Panel of Commissioners pray for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable
under the premises.
At Davao City and Tagum City, for the City of Tagum, this 17th day of May 2001.
ChairmanMember
28.Records of Agrarian Case No. 55-2000, Book I, p. 792; DAR also filed its Motion for
Reconsideration on the same date, i.e., 5 October 2001. (Records of Agrarian
Case No. 55-2000, Book I, p. 799.)
30.Id. at 158-160.
31.Id. at 161.
32.Id. at 166.
35.Id. at 168.
36.Id. at 49-54.
39.Id. at 588.
40.Id. at 599.
41.Id. at 686.
44.SEC. 2. Form and contents. — The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies
. . .; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed
on time; . . .
46.Id. at 638.
47.Rollo, p. 262.
48.Id. at 287-288.
50.Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon, 447 Phil. 495, 505 (2003).
51.TF Ventures, Inc. v. Matsuura, G.R. No 154177, 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 526, 532-
533.
52.David v. Navarro, G.R. No. 145284, 11 February 2004, 422 SCRA 499, 511.
53.Somoso v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78050, 23 October 1989, 178 SCRA 654,
663; Bach v. Ongkiko Kalaw, G.R. No. 160334, 11 September 2006.
54.Real v. Belo, G.R. No. 146224, 17 January 2007; Golangco v. Court of Appeals, 347
Phil. 771, 778 (1997); Heirs of Crisanta Y. Gabriel-Almoradie v. Court Appeals ,
G.R. No. 91385, 4 January 1994, 229 SCRA 15, 29; Republic v. Central Surety
& Insurance Co., 134 Phil. 631 (1968).
57.Vallejo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156413, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 658,
668; San Luis v. Court of Appeals, 417 Phil. 598, 605 (2001); Chua v. Court of
Appeals, 338 Phil. 262, 273 (1997); Golangco v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil.
771, 778 (1997).
58.Republic v. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 166429, 19 December 2005, 478 SCRA 474, 532.
61.Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals , 327 Phil. 1047, 1055 (1996).
62.Estate of Salud Jimenez v. Philippine Export Processing Zone, G.R. No. 137285, 16
January 2001, 349 SCRA 240, 264; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals, id. at 1054, quoting Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
Nos. 89898-99, 1 October 1990, 190 SCRA 207, 213.
64.Province of Tayabas v. Perez, 66 Phil. 467, 469 (1938); J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v.
Land Tenure Administration, G.R. No. L-21064, 18 February 1970, 31 SCRA
413, 432; Manotok v. National Housing Authority, G.R. Nos. L-55166-67, 21
May 1987, 150 SCRA 89.
67.Id. at 345.
69.Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, 464 Phil. 83, 84 (2004); Export Processing
Zone Authority v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603, 29 April 1987, 149 SCRA 305,
312;Belen v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45390, 15 April 1988, 160 SCRA 291,
295, citing National Power Corporation v. Jocson, G.R. Nos. 94193-99, 25
February 1992, 206 SCRA 520, 540; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,
G.R. No. 127198, 16 May 2005, 458 SCRA 441, 451; Republic v. Court of
Appeals, 331 Phil 1072 (1996), cited in Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of
Appeals, 379 Phil. 141, 147 (2000).
71.Rollo, p. 351.
6.the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers
and by the government to the property; and
These factors as provided under Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 have been
translated in a basic formula in DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992,
as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1994, issued
pursuant to the DAR's rule-making power to carry out the object and purposes
of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended.
LV = Land Value
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration
The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present, relevant and
applicable.
A.1When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, the formula
shall be:
A.2When the CNI factor is not present, and CS and MV are applicable, the formula
shall be:
A.2When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is applicable, the formula
shall be:
LV = MV x 2 ((Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal, G.R. No. 143276, 20 July 2004,
434 SCRA 543, 549-550.)
74.Id. at 146-149.
75.Belen v. Court of Appeals, supra note 69 at 295; Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Natividad, supra note 69 at 452-453. ATICcS
77.B.H Berkenkotter and Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89980, 14 December 1992,
216 SCRA 584, 589.