EN BANC
G.R. No. 158464, August 02, 2016
JOCELYN S. LIMKAICHONG, Petitioner, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, THROUGH THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
Being now assailed in this appeal are the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) on November 22, 2002 (dismissing the petitioner's petition for certiorari for not being the proper remedy, thereby affirming the dismissal of Civil Case No. 12558 by the trial court on the ground of the valuation by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) having already become final due to her failure as the landowner to bring her action for judicial determination of just compensation within 15 days from notice of such valuation),1 and the resolution promulgated on June 2, 2003 (denying her motion for reconsideration).2chanrobleslaw
After the petitioner rejected such valuation of her lands, the DARAB conducted summary administrative proceedings for the determination of just compensation.8 On May 28, 1999, the DARAB issued its order affirming the valuation of the lands upon finding the valuation consistent with existing administrative guidelines on land valuation.9chanrobleslaw
1. OCT FV-34400- P177,074.93;4 2. OCTFV-34401- P171,061.11;5 3. OCTFV-34402- P167,626.62;6 and 4. OCTFV-34403- P140,611.65.7
WHETHER OR NOT ON THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW, THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 22, 2002 RULING THAT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS NOT THE PROPER REMEDY IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE AS APPLIED TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.21chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThe petitioner argues that she is entitled to equal protection and treatment accorded by the very same trial court to other landowners whose landholdings were placed under agrarian reform coverage, listing the cases involving other landowners who had been given the chance to be heard on their claim for re-valuation by the trial court.22 She justifies her resort to certiorari by claiming that the RTC, in dismissing Civil Case No. 12558, acted whimsically and arbitrarily, and gravely abused its discretion; and that certiorari was necessary to prevent irreparable damage and injury to her resulting from the acquisition by the State of her lands based on wrongful valuation and without paying her the proper and just compensation.
The method of ascertaining just compensation under the aforecited decrees constitutes impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. It tends to render this Court inutile in a matter which under this Constitution is reserved to it for final determination.The Court has reiterated EPZA v. Dulay in its later decisions, stressing that such determination was the function of the courts of justice that no other branch or official of the Government could usurp.
Thus, although in an expropriation proceeding the court technically would still have the power to determine the just compensation for the property, following the applicable decrees, its task would be relegated to simply stating the lower value of the property as declared either by the owner or the assessor. As a necessary consequence, it would be useless for the court to appoint commissioners under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, the need to satisfy the due process clause in the taking of private property is seemingly fulfilled since it cannot be said that a judicial proceeding was not had before the actual taking. However, the strict application of the decrees during the proceedings would be nothing short of a mere formality or charade as the court has only to choose between the valuation of the owner and that of the assessor, and its choice is always limited to the lower of the two. The court cannot exercise its discretion or independence in determining what is just and fair. Even a grade school pupil could substitute for the judge insofar as the determination of constitutional just compensation is concerned.
xxxx
In the present petition, we are once again confronted with the same question of whether the courts under P.D. No. 1533, which contains the same provision on just compensation as its predecessor decrees, still have the power and authority to determine just compensation, independent of what is stated by the decree and to this effect, to appoint commissioners for such purpose.
This time we answer in the affirmative.
xxxx
It is violative of due process to deny the owner the opportunity to prove that the valuation in the tax documents is unfair or wrong. And it is repulsive to the basic concepts of justice and fairness to allow the haphazard work of a minor bureaucrat or clerk to absolutely prevail over the judgment of a court promulgated only after expert commissioners have actually viewed the property, after evidence and arguments pro and con have been presented, and after all factors and considerations essential to a fair and just determination have been judiciously evaluated.36chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Section 57. Special Jurisdiction - The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts unless modified by this Act.Republic v. Court of Appeals,39 which was principally relied upon by the petitioner herein, reiterated that the determination of just compensation for the taking of lands under the CARL was a power vested in the courts and not in administrative agencies, clarifying that the jurisdiction of the SAC was not appellate but original and exclusive, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision.
Apart from the fact that only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies — rules of procedure cannot — it is noteworthy that the New Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, which was adopted on May 30, 1994, now provide that in the event a landowner is not satisfied with a decision of an agrarian adjudicator, the landowner can bring the matter directly to the Regional Trial Court sitting as Special Agrarian Court. Thus Rule XIII, §11 of the new rules provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn the January 18, 2000 ruling in Philippine Veterans Bank,41 the Court, through Justice Vicente V. Mendoza who had penned Republic v. Court of Appeals, upheld the DARAB rule to the effect that the adjudicator's preliminary determination of just compensation must be brought to the SAC within 15 days from receipt of the notice thereof; otherwise, the parties would be concluded by the result. The Court then declared:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary§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 but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration.This is an acknowledgment by the DARAB that the decision of just compensation cases for the taking of lands under R.A. No. 6657 is a power vested in the courts.
xxxx
xxx. In accordance with it, the private respondent's case was properly brought by it in the RTC, and it was error for the latter court to have dismissed the case. In the terminology of §57, the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners." It would subvert this "original and exclusive" jurisdiction of the RTC for the DAR to vest original jurisdiction in compensation cases in administrative officials and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of administrative decisions.
Consequently, although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from §57 that the original and exclusive 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 §57 and therefore would be void. What adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to landowners, leaving to the courts the ultimate power to decide this question.40chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
As we held in Republic v. Court of Appeals, this rule is an acknowledgment by the DARAB that the power to decide just compensation cases for the taking of lands under R.A. No, 6657 is vested in the courts. It is error to think that, because of Rule XIII, §11, the original and exclusive jurisdiction given to the courts to decide petitions for determination of just compensation has thereby been transformed into an appellate jurisdiction. It only means that, in accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, but such determination is subject to challenge in the courts.However, in the 2007 ruling in Land Bank v. Suntay,43 the Court opined that the RTC erred in dismissing the Land Bank's petition for determination of just compensation on the ground that it was filed beyond the 15-day period provided in Section 11, Rule XIII of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure. This Court then emphatically reminded that the SAC's jurisdiction over petitions for the determination of just compensation was original and exclusive; that any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators of the DARAB and to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTC into appellate jurisdiction was void for being contrary to R.A, No. 6657; and that what DARAB adjudicators were empowered to do was only to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to the landowners, leaving to the courts the ultimate power to decide this question.44chanrobleslaw
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and exclusive" because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative determination. For that matter, the law may provide that the decision of the DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of administrative action.
Accordingly, as the petition in the Regional Trial Court was filed beyond the 15-day period provided in Rule XIII, §11 of the Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, the trial court correctly dismissed the case and the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the order of dismissal.42chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On the supposedly conflicting pronouncements in the cited decisions, the Court reiterates its ruling in this case that the agrarian reform adjudicator's decision on land valuation attains finality after the lapse of the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules. The petition for the fixing of just compensation should therefore, following the law and settled jurisprudence, be filed with the SAC within the said period. This conclusion, as already explained in the assailed decision, is based on the doctrines laid down in Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals and Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica.In all of the foregoing rulings of the Court as well as in subsequent ones, it could not have been overemphasized that the determination of just compensation in eminent domain is a judicial function. However, the more recent jurisprudence uphold the preeminence of the pronouncement in Philippine Veterans Bank to the effect that the parties only have 15 days from their receipt of the decision/order of the DAR within which to invoke the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SAC; otherwise, the decision/order attains finality and immutability.
xxxx
The Court notes that the Suntay ruling is based on Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, decided in 1996 also through the pen of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza. In that case, the Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the SAC is original and exclusive, not appellate. Republic, however, was decided at a time when Rule XIII, Section 11 was not yet present in the DARAB Rules. Further, Republic did not discuss whether the petition filed therein for the fixing of just compensation was filed out of time or not. The Court merely decided the issue of whether cases involving just compensation should first be appealed to the DARAB before the landowner can resort to the SAC under Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657.
To resolve the conflict in the rulings of the Court, we now declare herein, for the guidance of the bench and the bar, that the better rule is that stated in Philippine Veterans Bank, reiterated in Lubrica and in the August 14, 2007 Decision in this case. Thus, while a petition for the fixing of just compensation with the SAC is not an appeal from the agrarian reform adjudicator's decision but an original action, the same has to be filed within the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules; otherwise, the adjudicator's decision will attain finality. This rule is not only in accord with law and settled jurisprudence but also with the principles of justice and equity. Verily, a belated petition before the SAC, e.g., one filed a month, or a year, or even a decade after the land valuation of the DAR adjudicator, must not leave the dispossessed landowner in a state of uncertainty as to the true value of his property.46 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 165-169; penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona (retired), with the concurrence of Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios (retired/deceased) and Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam (retired/deceased).
2 Id. at 189-190.
3Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, signed by President Corazon Aquino on June 10, 1988.
4Rollo, pp. 69-70.
5 Id. at 71-72.
6 Id. at 76.
7 Id. at 73-74.
8 Docketed as DARAB Case Nos. VII-203-NO-98, VII-204-NO-98, VII-213-NO-98, and VII-228-NO-98.
9Rollo, pp. 98-103.
10 Id. at 82-85.
11 Id. at 104-105.
12 Section 51. Finality of Determination. - Any case or controversy before it (DAR) shall be decided within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for resolution. Only one (1) motion for consideration shall be allowed. Any order, ruling or decision shall be final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
13Rollo, p. 106.
14 Id. at 107-110.
15 Id. at 116-121.
16 Section 54. Certiorari. - Any decision, order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals by certiorari except as otherwise provided in this Act within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
17 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 but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration.
18 G.R. No. 132767, January 18, 2000, 322 SCRA 139.
19 G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996, 263 SCRA 758.
20Rollo, pp. 122-135.
21 Id. at 18.
22 Id. at 19-24, 138-155.
23 Id. at 215-228, 232-250.
24 Section 60. Appeals. - An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Special Agrarian Courts by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of the decision; otherwise, the decision shall become final.
An appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals, or from any order, ruling or decision of DAR, as the case may be, shall be by a petition for review with the Supreme Court within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of said decision.
25cralawred Heirs of Spouses Teofilo M. Reterta and Elisa Reterta v. Lopez, G.R. No. 159941, August 17, 2011, 655 SCRA 580, 590-591.
26De los Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169498, December 11, 2008, 573 SCRA 690, 700.
27 Id.
28Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity Commission, G.R. No. 144322, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 346, 358; Silvestre v. Torres and Oben, 57 Phil. 885, 890 (1933).
29Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85723, June 19, 1995, 245 SCRA 150, 152.
30Bristol Myers Squibb, (Phils.), Inc. v. Viloria, G.R. No. 148156, September 27, 2004, 439 SCRA 202, 211.
31 Executive Order No. 405 (VESTING IN THE LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE LAND VALUATION AND COMPENSATION FOR ALL LANDS COVERED UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988), dated June 14, 1990.
32 Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private Lands.- For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.
xxxx
33 Section 51 of R.A. No. 6657; Section 11 of Rule XIII of the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure.
34Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 19, at 764-765.
35 G.R. No. L-59603, April 29, 1987, 149 SCRA 305.
36 Id. at 311-316.
37 Section 49. Rules and Regulations. The PARC and the DAR shall have the power to issue rules and regulations, whether substantive or procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act. Said rules shall take effect ten (10) days after publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
38 Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested with the 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) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination for every action or proceeding before it.
It shall have the It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require submission of reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers to interrogatories and issue subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. It shall likewise have the power to punish direct and indirect contempt in the same manner and subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court
Representatives of farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers or their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR: Provided, however, that when there are two or more representatives for any individual or group, the representatives should choose only one among themselves to represent such party or group before any DAR proceedings.
Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be immediately executory except a decision or portion thereof involving solely the issue of just compensation.
39 Supra note 20.
40 Id. at 764-765.
41 Supra note 19.
42 Id. at 145-147.
43 G.R. No. 157903, October 11, 2007, 535 SCRA 605.
44 Id. at 618-619.
45 G.R. No. 169008, July 31, 2008, 560 SCRA 776.
46 Id. at 781-783.
47 Supra note 19.
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Sec.11 Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just Compensation. - The decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary determination of just compensation shall not be appealable to the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration.Replicated in Sec. 6, Rule XIX of the 2009 DARAB Rules is the imposition of the 15-day reglementary period. The provision reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Sec. 6. Filing of Original Action with the Special Agrarian Court for Final Determination. - The party who disagrees with the decision of the Board/Adjudicator may contest the same by filing an original action with the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) having jurisdiction over the subject property within fifteen (15) days from his receipt of the Board/Adjudicator's decision, (emphasis added)Since it was not disputed herein, as it was in fact admitted, that petitioner Limkaichong availed of the judicial remedy after about two-and-a-half months had elapsed from receipt of notice, respondents claim that the SAC ought to have dismissed her petition outright.
The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. The executive department or the legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation. (emphasis added)Dulay involved an expropriation case for the establishment of an export processing zone. There, the Court declared provisions of Presidential Decree Nos, 76, 464, 794, and 1533 as unconstitutional for encroaching on the prerogative of the judiciary to determine the amount of just compensation to which the affected landowners were entitled. The Court further held that, at the most, the valuation in the decrees may only serve as guiding principles or factors in determining just compensation, but it may not substitute the court's own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount.10chanrobleslaw
xxx The payment of just compensation for private property taken for public use is guaranteed no less by our Constitution and is included in the Bill of Rights. As such, no legislative enactments or executive issuances can prevent the courts from determining whether the right of the property owners to just compensation has been violated. It is a judicial function that cannot "be usurped by any other branch or official of the government." Thus, we have consistently ruled that statutes and executive issuances fixing or providing for the method of computing just compensation are not binding on courts and, at best, are treated as mere guidelines in ascertaining the amount thereof.To reiterate, the concept of just compensation is uniform across all forms of exercise of eminent domain. There is then neither rhyme nor reason to treat agrarian reform cases differently insofar as the determination of just compensation is concerned. I therefore express my concurrence to the line of cases that ruled that the land valuation by DAR is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party, for, in the end, the courts still have the right to review with finality the determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.14chanrobleslaw
Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act. (emphasis added)The fundamental tenet is that jurisdiction can only be granted through legislative enactments,15 and once conferred cannot be diminished by the executive branch. It can neither be expanded nor restricted by executive issuances in the guise of law enforcement. Thus, although the DAR has the authority to promulgate its own. rules of procedure,16 it cannot modify the "original and exclusive jurisdiction" to settle the issue of just compensation accorded the SACs. Stated in the alternative, the DAR is precluded from vesting upon itself the power to determine the amount of just compensation to which a landowner is entitled.
Section 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. — The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amounts as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP, in accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally determined by the court, as the just compensation for the land. (emphasis added)As can be gleaned, the CARL contemplates of only two modes of fixing the proper amount of just compensation: either by agreement of the parties, or by court ruling. Should the parties then fail to agree, the only remaining option is to seek court intervention. Notably, the law does not leave to any other body, not even the DAR, the final determination of just compensation. The jurisdiction of the SAC on this matter, therefore, remains to be original and exclusive.
It is clear from Sec. 57 that the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners. This original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC would be undermined if the DAR would vest in administrative officials original jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of administrative decisions. Thus, although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from Sec. 57 that the original and exclusive 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 Sec. 57 and therefore would be void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC by private respondent is valid. (emphasis added)The Court has applied this holding in numerous other cases. Heirs of Vidad v. Land Bank of the Philippines19 (Heirs of Vidad) summarized the Court's jurisprudence on this point thusly:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,20 the Court upheld the RTCs jurisdiction over Wycoco's petition for determination of just compensation even where no summary administrative proceedings was held before the DARAB which has primary jurisdiction over the determination of land valuation. xxxIn the cases cited in Heirs of Vidad, the Court has invariably upheld the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SACs over petitions for the determination of just compensation, notwithstanding the seeming failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the DAR.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,21 the landowner filed an action for determination of just compensation without waiting for the completion of DARAB's re-evaluation of the land. xxx
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,22 wherein Land Bank questioned the alleged failure of private respondents to seek reconsideration of the DAR's valuation, but instead filed a petition to fix just compensation with the RTC xxx.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,23 where the issue was whether the SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction over respondent's petition for determination of just compensation despite the pendency of the administrative proceedings before the DARAB xxx. (emphasis added)
The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. The executive department or the legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation. (emphasis added)The Court's pronouncement in Republic28 should, therefore, be upheld. There, the landowner filed a petition for the determination of just compensation before the SAC beyond the reglementary period mandated by the DAR rules. Nevertheless, the Court held that the outright dismissal of the case was not warranted. Instead, it endeavored to preserve the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SACs in the following wise:29
In accordance with [the procedure for the determination of compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657], the private respondent's case was properly brought by it in the RTC, and it was error for the latter court to have dismissed the case. In the terminology of [Sec.] 57 [of the CARL], the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners. It would subvert this original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC for the DAR to vest original jurisdiction in compensation cases in administrative officials and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of administrative decisions.Invoking this doctrine, the Court, in Suntay30 emphasized that the petition before the SAC is an original action, and not an appeal. It echoed that "[a]ny effort xxx to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to Section 57 and therefore would be void."31 Resultantly, the Court ruled that the filing of the petition beyond the 15-day period in that case did not bar the SAC from exercising its original and exclusive jurisdiction in resolving the issue of just compensation.
Consequently, although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from [Sec.] 57 that the original and exclusive 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 [Sec] 57 and therefore would be void. What adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to landowners, leaving to the courts the ultimate power to decide this question. (emphasis added)
xxx RA 6657 does not make DARs valuation absolutely binding as the amount payable by LBP. A reading of Section 18 of RA 6657 shows that the courts, and not the DAR, make the final determination of just compensation. It is well-settled that the DAR's land valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party. The courts will still have the right to review with finality the determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function. (emphasis added)All told, the DAR's valuation cannot be treated as the amount of just compensation the landowner is entitled to, notwithstanding the lapse of 15 days from receipt.of notice thereof. It is not in the nature of an award that was "finally determined by the court," for, aside from the DAR not being a court of law, the postulation would render the subsequent petition before the SAC an appeal. This would, in turn, contravene the clear and categorical tenor of the law that the jurisdiction of the SAC, with respect to the issue of just compensation, is original and exclusive.
Section 54. Certiorari. — Any decision, order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals by certiorari except as otherwise provided in this Act within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of a copy thereof.The title of the provision itself evinces that the period only applies to certiorari petitions before the .Court of Appeals (CA) for purposes of reviewing DAR rulings falling within its jurisdiction. It serves to distinguish petitions for certiorari under the CARL from those filed under the Rules of Court, which are allowed a 60-day leeway for filing.35chanrobleslaw
We reiterate the principle that the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules and regulations in the implementation of a statute is necessarily limited only to carrying into effect what is provided in the legislative enactment. The principle was enunciated as early as 1908 in the case of United States v. Barrias, The scope of the exercise of such rule-making power was clearly expressed in the case of United States v. Tupasi Molina, decided in 1914, thus: "Of course, the regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself cannot be extended. So long, however, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself cannot be extended. So long, however, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provision of the law, they are valid." (emphasis added, citations omitted)The spring cannot rise higher than its source. And just as a statute cannot be at variance with the Constitution, so too must the implementing rules conform to the language of the law.39 Rules and regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law they seek to implement. The power to promulgate Rules and Regulations cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned.40chanrobleslaw
Endnotes:
1 G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996.
2 G.R. No. 157903, October 11, 2007.
3 RA 6657, Sec. 16(d).
4 Id., Sec. 16(f).
5Article III. Bill of Rights
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.Article XII. National Economy and Patrimony
Section 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government.Article XIII. Social Justice and Human Rights
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. (emphasis added)
6 Record of the Constitutional Commission Proceedings and Debates, Vol. 3, pp. 16-21; Minutes of the Constitutional Commission dated August 7, 1986.
7National Power Corporation v. Spouses Zabala, G.R. No. 173520, January 30, 2013, citing Republic v. Rural Bank of Kabacan, Inc., G.R. No. 185124, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 233, 244; National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, 480 Phil. 470, 479 (2004).
8EPZA v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603, April 29, 1987.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 G.R. No. 173520, January 30, 2013.
12Republic v. Lubinao, G.R. No. 166553, July 30, 2009, 594 SCRA 363, 378; National Power Corporation v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 193023, June 29, 2011, 653 SCRA 84, 95; and National Power Corporation v. Saludares, G.R. No. 189127, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 266, 277-278.
13 Sec. 3A. xxx
In determining the just compensation of the property or property sought to be acquired through expropriation proceedings, the same shall:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(a) With respect to the acquired land or portion thereof, not to exceed the market value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property, or such market value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower.
(b) With respect to the acquired right-of-way easement over the land or portion thereof, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the market value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property, or such market value as determined by the assessor whichever is lower.
xxxx
14Heirs of Vidad v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166461, April 30, 2010.
15Magno v. People, G.R. No. 171542, April 6, 2011; citing Machado v. Gatdula, G.R. No. 156287, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 546, 559; Spouses Vargas v. Spouses Caminas, G.R. Nos. 137839-40, June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA 305, 317; Metromedia Times Corporation v. Pastorin, G.R. No. 154295, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 320, 335; and Dy v. National Labor Relations Commission, 229 Phil. 234, 242 (1986).
16 RA 6657, Sec. 49.
17Land Bank of the Philippines v. Montalvan, G.R. No. 190336, June 27, 2012; citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 252 (1999); and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, 515 Phil. 467 (2006).
18 376 Phil. 252 (1999).
19 G.R. No. 166461, April 30, 2010.
20 G.R. No. 140160, January 13, 2004.
21 376 Phil. 252 (1999).
22 G.R. No. 127198, May 16, 2005.
23 G.R. No. 164876, January 23, 2006.
24 G.R. No. 190336, June 27, 2012.
25cralawred Land Bank of the Philippines v. Montalvan, G.R. No. 190336, June 27, 2012.
26Heirs of Vidad v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166461, April 30, 2010; citing Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343, 382.
27Vios v. Patangco, G.R. No. 163103, February 6, 2009.
28 G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996.
29Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996.
30 G.R. No. 157903, October 11, 2007.
31Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay, G.R. No. 157903, October 11, 2007.
32 G.R. No. 166461, April 30, 2010.
33Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
34 RA 6657, Sec. 16(f).
35 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Sec. 4.
36Section 60. Appeals. — An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Special Agrarian Courts by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days receipt of notice of the decision; otherwise, the decision shall become final.
An appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals, or from any order, ruling or decision of the DAR, as the case may be, shall be by a petition for review with the Supreme Court within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of said decision.
37Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bicolandia Drug, G.R. No. 148083, July 21, 2006.
38 G.R. No. 98332, January 16, 1995.
39Republic of the Philippines v. Bajao, G.R. No. 160596, March 20, 2009.
40People v. Maceren, No. L-32166, October 18, 1977, 79 SCRA 450; citing University of Santo Tomas v. Board of Tax Appeals, 93 Phil. 376, 382 (1953), citing 12 C.I. 845-46. As to invalid regulations, see Collector of Internal Revenue v. Villaflor, 69 Phil. 319 (1940); Wise & Co. v. Meer, 78 Phil. 655, 676 (1947); Del Mar v. Phil. Veterans Administration, No. L-27299, June 27, 1973, 51 SCRA 340, 349.
LEONEN, J.:
SECTION 57. Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act.Thus, Regional Trial Courts sitting as Special Agrarian Courts have "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners."6 The jurisdiction is original, which means that petitions for determination of just compensation may be initiated before Special Agrarian Courts. The jurisdiction is exclusive, which means that no other court or quasi-administrative tribunal has the same original jurisdiction over these cases.7 There are no ambiguities in Section 57. No administrative process can subvert this grant of original and exclusive jurisdiction to Special Agrarian Courts.
The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision. (Emphasis supplied)
The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. The executive department or the legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation.10chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarySection 57, which vests in the courts original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine just compensation, is consistent with the Constitution.
SECTION 3. Definitions. - ...An agrarian dispute generally refers to conflicts between farmers, or between farmers and their landlords. The conflict between landowners and government, in instances of expropriation, is not included.
(d) Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
[C]ases should be determined on the merits, after all parties have been given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on technicalities or procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be served better. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. In fact, Section 6 of Rule 1 states that the Rules [on Civil Procedure] shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of ensuring the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.18 (Emphasis in the original)In cases that involve fundamental rights, such as this, the Court of Appeals should observe a reasonable relaxation of the rules of procedure.
Endnotes:
1 233 Phil. 313 (1987) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
2 Id. at 326.
3 Id.
4 Rep. Act No. 6657 is otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
5 Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 16(f).
6 Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 57.
7Ong v. Parel, 240 Phil. 734, 742-743 (1987) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Third Division].
8 CONST., art. III, sec. 9.
9 CONST., art. XIII, sec. 4 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySECTION 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
10Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, 233 Phil. 313, 326 (1987) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
11 Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 54.
12 Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 3(d).
13 Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 21 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySEC. 21. Payment of Compensation by Beneficiaries Under Voluntary Land Transfer. - Direct payment in cash or in kind may be made by the farmer-beneficiary to the landowner under terms to be mutually agreed upon by both parties, which shall be binding upon them, upon registration with and approval by the DAR. Said approval shall be considered given, unless notice of disapproval is received by the farmer-beneficiary within 30 days from the date of registration.
In the event they cannot agree on the price of the land, the procedure for compulsory acquisition as provided in Section 16 shall apply. The LBP shall extend financing to the beneficiaries for purposes of acquiring the land.
14 Ponencia, p. 11.
15 CIVIL CODE, art. 1141 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryARTICLE 1141. Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years.
This provision is without prejudice to what is established for the acquisition of ownership and other real rights by prescription.
16 Ponencia, p. 2, citing rollo, pp. 82-85.
17Catindig v. Court of Appeals, 111 Phil. 624, 630 (1979) [Per J. De Castro, First Division].
18Ching v. Cheng, G.R. No. 175507, October 8, 2014, 737 SCRA 610, 634-635 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division], citing Posadas-Moya and Associates Construction Co., Inc. v. Greenfield Development Corporation, 451 Phil. 647, 661 (2003) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division], in turn citing Jara v. Court of Appeals, 427 Phil. 532, 548 (2002) [Per J. Carpio, Third Division]; Paras v. Baldado, 406 Phil. 589, 596 (2001) [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division]; Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz, 390 Phil. 1245, 1252 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 252, 260 (1998) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]; Malonzo v. Zamora, 370 Phil. 240, 257 (1999) [Per J. Romero, En Banc]; and Fortich v. Corona, 352 Phil. 461, 481-482 (1998) [Per J. Martinez, Second Division].
JARDELEZA, J.:
[T]he agrarian reform adjudicator's decision on land valuation attains finality after the lapse of the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules. The petition for the fixing of just compensation should therefore, following the law and settled jurisprudence, be filed with the SAC within the said period.In no uncertain terms, Justice Bersamin underscores that the Court made its declaration in Martinez "to purge any uncertainties brought upon by the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter"3 and to "unanimously resolve[d] [a] jurisprudential conundrum."4 After today, there should be no more doubt about the "preeminence of the pronouncement xxx that the parties only have 15 days from their receipt of the decision/order of the DAR within which to invoke the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SAC; otherwise, the decision/order attains finality and immutability."5chanrobleslawxxx
[W]hile a petition for the fixing of just compensation with the SAC is not an appeal from the agrarian reform adjudicator's decision but an original action, the same has to be filed within the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules; otherwise, the adjudicator's decision will attain finality.2 (Citations omitted, Emphasis supplied.)
Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. - For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:In case a party disagrees with the DAR's decision on the amount of compensation, Section 16 and related provisions allow him to bring the matter to the courts for final determination, as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryxxx
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. - For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
Objection is raised, however, to the manner of fixing the just compensation, which it is claimed is entrusted to the administrative authorities in violation of judicial prerogatives. Specific reference is made to Section 16(d), which provides that in case of the rejection or disregard by the owner of the offer of the government to buy his land—At this point, it should be emphasized that Congress in RA 6657 provided for a heightened judicial review of the DAR's preliminary determination of just compensation pursuant to Section 16. In case of a proper challenge, SACs are actually empowered to conduct a de novo review of the DAR's decision. Under RA 6657, a full trial is held where SACs are authorized to (1) appoint one or more commissioners,19 (2) receive, hear, and retake the testimony and evidence of the parties, and (3) make findings of fact anew. In other words, in exercising its exclusive and original jurisdiction to determine just compensation under RA 6657, the SAC is possessed with exactly the same powers and prerogatives of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court.xxx the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.To be sure, the determination of just compensation is a function addressed to the courts of justice and may not be usurped by any other branch or official of the government. xxxxxx
A reading of the aforecited Section 16(d) will readily show that it does not suffer from the arbitrariness that rendered the challenged decrees [in EPZA v. Dulay] constitutionally objectionable. Although the proceedings are described as summary, the landowner and other interested parties are nevertheless allowed an opportunity to submit evidence on the real value of the property. But more importantly, the determination of the just compensation by the DAR is not by any means final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party, for Section 16(f) clearly provides:Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.The determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts of justice will still have the right to review with finality the said determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.18 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).
[C]ourt and agency are not to be regarded as wholly independent and unrelated instrumentalities of justice, each acting in the performance of its prescribed statutory duty without regard to the appropriate function of the other in securing the plainly indicated objects of the statute. Court and agency are the means adopted to attain the prescribed end, and, so far as their duties are defined by the words of the statute, those words should be construed so as to attain that end through coordinated action. Neither body should repeat in this day the mistake made by the courts of law when equity was struggling for recognition as an ameliorating system of justice; neither can rightly be regarded by the other as an alien intruder, to be tolerated if must be, but never to be encouraged or aided by the other in the attainment of the common aim. (Citations omitted, Emphasis supplied.)
It must be emphasized that the taking of property under RA 6657 is an exercise of the State's power of eminent domain. The valuation of property or determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the courts and not with administrative agencies. When the parties cannot agree on the amount of just compensation, only the exercise of judicial power can settle the dispute with binding effect on the winning and losing parties, On the other hand, the determination of just compensation in the RARAD/DARAB requires the voluntary agreement of the parties. Unless the parties agree, there is no settlement of the dispute before the RARAD/DARAB, except if the aggrieved party fails to file a petition for just compensation on time before the RTC.28 (Citations omitted, emphasis and underscoring supplied.)Neither landowner nor agency can disregard the administrative process provided under RA 6657 without offending the constitutional prerogative of the Congress to grant primary jurisdiction to the DAR.
xxx [I]n cases raising issues of fact not within the conventional experience of judges or cases requiring the exercise of administrative discretion, agencies created by Congress for regulating the subject matter should not be passed over. This is so even though the facts after they have been appraised by specialized competence serve as a premise for legal consequences to be judicially defined. Uniformity and consistency in the regulation of business entrusted to a particular agency are secured, and the limited functions of review by the judiciary are more rationally exercised, by preliminary resort for ascertaining and interpreting the circumstances underlying legal issues to agencies that are better equipped than courts by specialization, by insight gained through experience, and by more flexible procedure.29 (Emphasis supplied.)The adjudication by the DAR on just compensation is not an executive recommendation or a superfluity to be blithely dismissed by the courts. They are, rather, quasi-judicial decisions reached as a result of what the Administrative Code of 1987 considers as a contested case, where "legal rights, duties or privileges asserted by specific parties as required by the Constitution or by law are xxx determined after hearing."30 These decisions become final and immutable if not timely challenged before the SAC. The SAC, in resolving such challenge, must dispose, affirm or reverse the administrative agency's determination by way of a full decision, expressing "clearly and distinctly the facts and the law" on which the SAC decision is based.31chanrobleslaw
Section 51. Finality of Determination. - Any case or controversy before it shall be decided within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for resolution. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Any order, ruling or decision shall be final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.While Section 51 expressly provides for the fifteen-day period, Section 54 states that any decision of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or matter pertaining to the implementation of the Act (including, perforce, determination of just compensation) may be brought to the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of the DAR decision, "except as otherwise provided in the Act," The proviso refers to the exception provided under Section 57, namely, the special jurisdiction of the SAC to determine just compensation. On top of Section 51, Sections 54 and 57, read together, provide that decisions of the DAR become final within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision, unless brought to the Court of Appeals under Section 54, or to the SAC under Section 57.xxx
Section 54. Certiorari. - Any decision, order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals by certiorari except as otherwise provided in this Act within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of a copy thereof. The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and conclusive if based on substantial evidence.xxx
Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. - The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act. The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Revised Rules of Court finally also provide, under Rule 43, Section 4, for a fifteen-day period of finality for agency action.37chanrobleslawBook VII
Administrative Procedure
xxx
Chapter 3
Adjudication
xxx
Section 14. Decision. - Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The agency shall decide each case within thirty (30) days following its submission. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record, if any, or to them.
Section 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of the agency shall become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected. One motion for reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the running of the said period.xxx
Chapter 4
Administrative Appeal in Contested Cases
xxx
Section 23. Finality of Decision of Appellate Agency. - In any contested case, the decision of the appellate agency shall become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt by the parties of a copy thereof.
xxx
Section 25. Judicial Review. -
(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with this chapter and applicable laws. (2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision may seek judicial review. (3) The action for judicial review may be brought against the agency, or its officers, and all indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court. (4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the agency within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal, and with the reviewing court a petition for review of the order. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review, and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the order appealed from, together with copies of such material portions of the records as are referred to therein and other supporting papers. The petition shall be under oath and shall show, by stating the specific material dates, that it was filed within the period fixed in this chapter. (5) The petition for review shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the final administrative decision. One (1) motion for reconsideration may be allowed. If the motion is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial, If the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the appellant shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal. (6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified by statute or, in the absence thereof, in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court. (7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a whole. The findings of fact of the agency when supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically" provided otherwise by law. (Emphasis supplied.)
The concept of just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" inasmuch as the property owner is being made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss.41 (Citations omitted, Emphasis supplied.)Finally, the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws demands that a thirty-year period should be available to both the landowner and the DAR/LBP. Under this regime, landowners would be tempted to speculate on receiving interest if they postpone the filing of the action to determine just compensation, thus, shifting the burden of the risk of inflation to the Government. This, in turn, will disturb the Government's budget process and consequently increase the cost to be incurred by the Government in implementing land reform, Conversely, unscrupulous DAR/LBP functionaries may be tempted to unduly delay appeal for corrupt reasons. This will leave a landowner uncertain, for the duration of the thirty-year period, as to the true value of his property, the very evil he is sought to be protected from by Martinez:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
xxx This rule is not only in accord with law and settled jurisprudence but also with the principles of justice and equity. Verily, a belated petition before the SAC, e.g., one filed a month, or a year, or even a decade after the land valuation of the DAR adjudicator, must not leave the dispossessed landowner in a state of uncertainty as to the true value of his property.42chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryI vote to GRANT the petition.
Endnotes:
1 G.R. No. 169008, July 31, 2008, 560 SCRA 776.
2Ponencia, pp. 11-12.
3Id. at 11.
4Id. at 13.
5Id. at 12, Emphasis supplied.
6 Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
7 This section provides: "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."
8Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603, April 29, 1987, 149 SCRA 305, 316.
9Bank of Commerce v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. Nos. 154470-71 & 154589-90, September 24, 2012, 681 SCRA 521.
10Pambujan Sur United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., Inc., 94 Phil. 932, 938 (1954). See also CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Sec. 2.
11 G.R. No. L-48672, July 31,1987, 152 SCRA 540.
12Id. at 548.
13 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
14 Decreeing The Emancipation Of Tenants From The Bondage Of The Soil, Transferring To Them The Ownership Of The Land They Till And Providing The Instruments And Mechanism Therefor (1972).
15 Q and A on CARP <http://www.dar.gov.ph/q-and-a-on-carp/english> (Last accessed on August 5, 2016.)
16 RA 6657, Sec. 60. Appeals. - An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Special Agrarian Courts by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days receipt of notice of the decision; otherwise, the decision shall become final. An appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals, or from any order, ruling or decision of the DAR, as the case may be, shall be by a petition for review with the Supreme Court within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of said decision.
17 G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343.
18Id. at 380-382.
19 RA 6657, Sec. 58.
20 This provision reads as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySec. 25. Judicial Review. —
(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with this chapter and applicable laws. (2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision may seek judicial review. (3) The action for judicial review may be brought against the agency, or its officers, and all indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court. (4) Appeal from an agency decision shall be perfected by filing with the agency within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof a notice of appeal, and with the reviewing court a petition for review of the order. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review, and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the order appealed from, together with copies of such material portions of the records as are referred to therein and other supporting papers. The petition shall be under oath and shall how, by stating the specific material dates, that it was filed within the period fixed in this chapter. (5) The petition for review shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the final administrative decision. One (1) motion for reconsideration may be allowed. If the motion is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal during the remaining period for appeal reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. If the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the appellant shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution to perfect his appeal. (6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified by statute or, in the absence thereof, in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court. (7) Review shall be made on the basis of the record taken as a whole. The findings of fact of the agency when supported by substantial evidence shall be final except when specifically provided otherwise by law.
21 Executive Order No. 292.
22 See Section 25(7), Chapter 4, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987 and NGEI Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. v. Filipinas Palmoil Plantation, Inc., G.R. No. 184950, October 11, 2012, 684 SCRA 152, 163.
23Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570 (1952).
24 G.R. No. 166461, April 30, 2010, 619 SCRA 609.
25cralawred Dissenting Opinion of Justice Velasco, p. 7.
26 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen, pp. 1, 4.
27 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen, p. 4.
28 G.R. No. 166461, April 30, 2010, 619 SCRA 609, 630.
29Far East Conference v. United States, supra.
30 Sec. 2(5), Chapter 1, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987.
31 CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 14.
32 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Velasco, p. 10.
33 RA 6657, Sec. 49.
34 RA 6657, Sec. 50.
35 G.R. No. L-76633, October 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 533.
36 Chapters 3 and 4, Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987.
37 Rule 43, Sec. 4. Period of appeal. - The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. xxx
38 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen, p. 4.
39 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 16.
40 RULES OF COURT, Rule 1, Sec. 6.
41Apo Fruits gorporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164195, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 537, 557-558.
42Supra note 1 at 783.