FIRST DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 201856-57, March 16, 2016
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CONCEPCION PADILLA-MUNSAYAC AND BONIFACIO-MUNSAYAC, Respondents.
G.R. NO. 201871
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REP. BY SEC. NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN (NOW VIRGILIO R. DELOS REYES), Petitioner, v. CONCEPCION PADILLA-MUNSAYAC AND BONIFACIO MUNSAYAC, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, C.J.:
Before this Court are consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision1 dated 14 September 2011 issued by the Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 109778 and CA-G.R. SP No. 109992. The CA affirmed therein the Decision2 and Order3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 33, Guimba, Nueva Ecija.
[T]he topography of the land is generally flat, devoted to rice production and accessible to all types of land transportation. It is rainfed, however, the other landholdings being cultivated by the farmer beneficiaries have deep wells which is the source of water. There is only one (1) cropping season. Adjacent lots to the landholdings of the petitioners were sold at P180,000.00 per hectare and it can be mortgaged at P80,000.00 per hectare. The average harvest per hectare is ninety (90) cavans and there are no trees planted thereon. There were seasons that tenant-beneficiaries planted vegetables but the produce was solely for home consumption. A two-hectare portion of the subject land was sold for P300,000.00. The commissioners fixed the just compensation of petitioners' land at P120,000.00 per hectare.12ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:SO ORDERED.18ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
- Fixing the just compensation for plaintiffs' 8.1563 hectares land at PI 20,000.00 per hectare or a total of P978756.00;
- Ordering the defendant Land Bank of the Philippines to pay the above amount to the plaintiffs] in cash and bonds in the manner provided by law.
Land Bank's contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on October 21, 1972, the time of the effectivity of P.D. 27, ergo just compensation should be based on the value of the property as of that time and not at the time of possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office of the President, Malacañang, Manila v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that the seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of P.D. 27 but would take effect [upon] payment of just compensation.
Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of R.A. 6657 before the completion of this process, the just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said law. Indeed, R.A. 6657 is the applicable law, with P.D. 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche.
x x x x
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by P.D. 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with R.A. 6657, and not P.D. 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.25 (Emphases supplied)
As previously noted, the property was expropriated under the Operation Land Transfer scheme of P.D. No. 27 way back in 1972. More than 30 years have passed and petitioners are yet to benefit from it, while the farmer-beneficiaries have already been harvesting its produce for the longest time. Events have rendered the applicability of P.D. No. 27 inequitable. Thus, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 should apply in this case.27 (Emphasis supplied)
The Natividad case reiterated the Court's ruling in Office of the President v. Court of Appeals [413 Phil. 711] that the expropriation of the landholding did not take place on the effectivity of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972 but seizure would take effect on the payment of just compensation judicially determined.
Likewise, in the recent case of Heirs of Francisco R. Tantoco, Sr. v. Court of Appeals [489 SCRA 590], we held that expropriation of landholdings covered by R.A. No. 6657 takes place, not on the effectivity of the Act on June 15, 1988, but on the payment of just compensation.29ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The terse statement by the OIC-Regional Director that the Dakila property would still be subject to Republic Act No. 6657 should Presidential Decree No. 27 be inapplicable did not meet the requirements under Republic Act No. 6657. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6657 identified rice and corn lands subject to Presidential Decree No. 27 for priority distribution in the first phase and implementation of the CARP.
Insofar as the interplay of these two laws was concerned, the Court has said that during the effectivity of the Republic Act No. 6657 and in the event of incomplete acquisition under Presidential Decree No. 27, the former should apply, with the provisions of the latter and Executive Order No. 228 having only suppletory effect.31 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)
SECTION 75. Suppletory Application of Existing Legislation. — The provisions of Republic Act No. 3844 as amended, Presidential Decree Nos. 27 and 266 as amended, Executive Order Nos. 228 and 229, both Series of 1987; and other laws not inconsistent with this Act shall have suppletory effect.
Section 5. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
SEC. 7. Priorities. - The DAR, in coordination with the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) shall plan and program the final acquisition and distribution of all remaining unacquired and undistributed agricultural lands from the effectivity of this Act until June 30, 2014. Lands shall be acquired and distributed as follows:
Phase One: During the five (5)-year extension period hereafter all remaining lands above fifty (50) hectares shall be covered for purposes of agrarian reform upon the effectivity of this Act. All private agricultural lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings in excess of fifty (50) hectares which have already been subjected to a notice of coverage issued on or before December 10, 2008; rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree No. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all private lands voluntarily offered by the owners for agrarian reform: Provided, That with respect to voluntary land transfer, only those submitted by June 30, 2009 shall be allowed Provided, further, That after June 30, 2009, the modes of acquisition shall be limited to voluntary offer to sell and compulsory acquisition: Provided, furthermore, That all previously acquired lands wherein valuation is subject to challenge by landowners shall be completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended x x x.35 (Emphases supplied)
Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. - In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation. (Underscoring supplied)
After examining the evidence in the record as well as the location of the subject landholding, its use, average gross production, and the prevailing land value in the locality vis-a-vis the DAR's and LBP's valuation, this Court adopts the recommendation of Commissioners Esguerra and Wong that the just compensation for the subject landholding be fixed at P120,000 per hectare. The Court notes that the Commissioners took into consideration the different factors provided for in Section 17, R.A. 6657 such as average gross production, current value, like properties, nature of the subject properties and actual use. This Court sees no reason to reject the findings of the Commissioners. 38 (Underscoring supplied)
Again, this Court finds no errors on the part of the trial court in adopting the recommendation of the commissioners:
In any expropriation proceedings and for purposes of determining the just compensation, it is almost always expected that Commissioners are appointed. In the instant case as expected, Commissioners were appointed.
Under Section 17 of R.A. 6657 is provided the following:Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. - In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations and the assessment made by the government assessors shall be considered.
As shown in the Report of Commissioners, the amount of P120,000 per hectare was somehow based on the above-quoted provision of the law.39 (Underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo (G.R. Nos. 201856-57), pp. 53-71. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario concurring.
2 Id. at 200-202. Penned by Presiding Judge Ismael P. Casabar.
3 Id. at 203.
4 Id. at 93.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 93-94.
7 Id. at 94.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 95.
11Rollo (G.R. No. 201871), p. 11.
12 Id. at 11-12.
13 Supra note 1, at 218.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 227.
16 Id. at 200-202.
17 Id. at 97.
18 Id. at 202.
19 Id. at 203.
20 Per Resolution dated 29 October 2009, both Petitions for Review filed by petitioners were consolidated.
21 Supra note 1, at 53-71.
22 Id. at 193-A.
23LBP v. Lajom, G.R. Nos. 184982 & 185048, 20 August 2014; LBP v. Santiago, Jr., G.R. No. 182209, 03 October 2012, 682 SCRA 278; citations omitted.
24IBP v. Natividad, 497 Phil. 738 (2005).cralawred
25 Id. at 739-740, 746-747.
26 Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 535 Phil. 819-834 (2006).cralawred
27 Id. at 823. 833.
28 Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 537 Phil. 571-584 (2006).
29 Id. at 580.
30Holy Trinity Realty & Development Corp. v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 200454, 22 October 2014.
31 Id.
32 AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR- ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
33 Republic Act No. 6657 (1988), Sec. 2.
34 Section 34. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect on 01 July 2009 and it shall be published in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
35 Republic Act No. 9700, amending R.A. 6657; Sec. 5.
36 DAR Administrative Order No. 01, s. 2010.
37Land Bank of the Phils. V. Vda de Abello, 602 Phil. 710-721 (2009).
38 Supra note 1, at 202.
39 Id. at 67-68.cralawred
40City Government of Valenzuela v. Agustines, G.R. No. 209369 (Notice), 28 January 2015; citing Ysidoro v. Leonardo-De Castro, 665 SCRA 1, 13 (2012).
41City Government of Valenzuela v. Agustines, G.R. No. 209369 (Notice), 28 January 2015.
42City Government of Valenzuela v. Agustines, G.R. No. 209369 (Notice), 28 January 2015; citing Heirs of Pacencia Racaza v. Abay-abay, 672 SCRA 622, 627-628 (2012).
43 See LBP v. Montalvan, G.R. No. 190336, 27 June 2012, 675 SCRA 380.
44 Id.
45 Supra note 37.
46Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871,13 August 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 455.