THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 206992, June 11, 2018
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEREDEROS DE CIRIACO CHUNACO DISTILERIA, INC., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
GESMUNDO, J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the April 26, 2013 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 98113. The CA denied the petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the Resolutions2 dated July 7, 2005 and December 19, 2006, respectively, of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DSCA No. 0383, a case for preliminary determination of just compensation.
Herederos De Ciriaco Chunaco Distileria, Inc. (respondent) was the owner of several parcels of land with an aggregate area of 22.587 hectares situated at Barangay Masarawag, Guinobatan, Albay. These lands are covered by twelve (12) Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-63245, T-63227, T-63230, T-63246, T-63231, T-63233, T-63226, T-63229, T-63572, T-63575, T-63573 and T-63232.
In November 2001, respondent voluntarily offered for sale the subject lots to the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).3 Land Bank of the Philippines (petitioner), by virtue of its mandate under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, came up with the CARP compensation for the subject lands and offered the same to respondent in the amount of P957,991.30. Upon receipt of the valuation of the properties, respondent rejected the offered compensation.
Hence, twelve (12) cases for preliminary administrative determination of just compensation covering the said parcels of land were conducted by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Albay, Branch 1 (PARAD).
During trial, petitioner insisted that the compensation of the subject lands should only be P957,991.30. On the other hand, respondent countered that the subject lands were worth P195,410.07 per hectare.
The PARAD Ruling
In its Decision4 dated February 17, 2004, the PARAD ruled in favor of respondent and held that the just compensation for the subject lands should be P195,410.07 per hectare, or a total of P4,455,349.00. The decretal portion reads:
WHEREFORE, taking into account the evidences (sic) presented by the parties, the valuation pegged at P958,010.82 for the subject properties of landowner/protestant is hereby set aside and new one entered at P4,455,349.62 as the just and fair value thereof or the equivalent of P195,410.07 per hectare. The Land Bank of the Philippines Valuation Office, Legazpi City is hereby ordered to effect payment to herein landowners/protestants pursuant to pertinent guidelines.The said decision was received by petitioner on February 24, 2004. After thirteen (13) days, or on March 9, 2004, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration6 before the PARAD.
SO ORDERED.5
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration12 but it was denied by the DARAB in its resolution dated December 19, 2006.
SO ORDERED.11
Petitioner argues that: when it received the February 17, 2004 PARAD decision on February 24, 2004, it timely filed a motion for reconsideration thereof, on March 9, 2004; when it received the April 1, 2004 resolution of the PARAD denying its motion for reconsideration on April 6, 2004, it had a fresh fifteen (15)-day period within which to file the petition for judicial determination of just compensation before the RTC-SAC; from the moment that the petition was filed in the RTC-SAC, the PARAD lost its jurisdiction over the determination of just compensation; and the PARAD cannot anymore enforce or execute its February 17, 2004 decision.ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT A FRESH FIFTEEN (15)-DAY PERIOD IS AVAILABLE TO COMMENCE AN ACTION IN THE SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT (SAC), NOTWITHSTANDING ANY RULE TO THE CONTRARY, AFTER DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATOR UNDER THE CARP LAW (R.A. 6657, AS AMENDED).14
SECTION 56. Special Agrarian Court. - The Supreme Court shall designate at least one (1) branch of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) within each province to act as a Special Agrarian Court.Fittingly, as the taking of property under R.A. No. 6657 is an exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State, 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.19 Consequently, the SAC can properly take cognizance of any petition for determination of just compensation.
The Supreme Court may designate more branches to constitute such additional Special Agrarian Courts as may be necessary to cope with the number of agrarian cases in each province. In the designation, the Supreme Court shall give preference to the Regional Trial Courts which have been assigned to handle agrarian cases or whose presiding judges were former judges of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) judges assigned to said courts shall exercise said special jurisdiction in addition to the regular jurisdiction of their respective courts.
The Special Agrarian Courts shall have the powers and prerogatives inherent in or belonging to the Regional Trial Courts.
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 supplied)
SECTION 11. Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just Compensation. - The decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary detem1ination 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. (emphasis supplied)The conflict between R.A. No. 6657 and the DARAB Rules, however, is not of first impression.
Since the determination of just compensation is a judicial function, the Court must abandon its ruling in Veterans Bank, Martinez and Soriano that a petition for determination of just compensation before the SAC shall be proscribed and adjudged dismissible if not filed within the 15-day period prescribed under the DARAB Rules.Indeed, Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657 clearly vests on the RTC-SAC the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to Section 57 and therefore would be void.22 The DAR has no authority to qualify or undo the RTC-SAC's jurisdiction over the determination of just compensation under R.A. No. 6657. Thus, the 15-day reglementary period under Section 11, Rule XIII of the DARAB Rules cannot be sustained. The RTC-SAC cannot simply be reduced to an appellate court which reviews administrative decisions of the DAR within a short period to appeal.
To maintain the rulings would be incompatible and inconsistent with the legislative intent to vest the original and exclusive jurisdiction in the determination of just compensation with the SAC. Indeed, such rulings judicially reduced the SAC to merely an appellate court to review the administrative decisions of the DAR. This was never the intention of the Congress.
As earlier cited, in Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657, Congress expressly granted the RTC, acting as SAC, the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners. Only the legislature can recall that power. The DAR has no authority to qualify or undo that. The Court's pronouncement in Veterans Bank, Martinez, Soriano, and Limkaichong, reconciling the power of the DAR and the SAC essentially barring any petition to the SAC for having been filed beyond the 15-day period provided in Section 11, Rule XIII of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, cannot be sustained. The DAR regulation simply has no statutory basis.
x x x x
While R.A. No. 6657 itself does not provide for a period within which a landowner can file a petition for the determination of just compensation before the SAC, it cannot be imprescriptible because the parties cannot be placed in limbo indefinitely. The Civil Code settles such conundrum. Considering that the payment of just compensation is an obligation created by law, it should only be ten (10) years from the time the landowner received the notice of coverage. The Constitution itself provides for the payment of just compensation in eminent domain cases. Under Article 1144, such actions must be brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues. Article 1144 reads:Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues:Nevertheless, any interruption or delay caused by the government like proceedings in the DAR should toll the running of the prescriptive period. The statute of limitations has been devised to operate against those who slept on their rights, but not against those desirous to act but cannot do so for causes beyond their control.
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment.
In this case, Dalauta received the Notice of Coverage on February 7, 1994. He then filed a petition for determination of just compensation on February 28, 2000. Clearly, the filing date was well within the ten-year prescriptive period under Article 1141.21 (emphases supplied)
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 31 47; penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 97-103 and 118-119.
3 Id. at 59.
4 Id. at 31-45.
5Rollo, p. 34.
6 CA rollo, p. 46.
7 Id. at 50-51.
8 Id. at 58-62.
9 Id. at 52-55.
10 Id. at 56-57.
11 Id. at 102.
12 Id. at 104-115.
13 506 Phil. 613 (2005).
14Rollo, p. 19.
15 Id. at 85-97.
16 636 Phil. 313 (2010).
17Rollo, pp. 108-122.
18Export Processing Zone Authority v. Judge Dulay, 233 Phil. 313, 326 (1987).
19Land Bank of the Philippines v. Dalauta, G.R. No. 190004, August 8, 2017; citing Land Bank v. Sps. Montalvan, et al., 689 Phil. 641 (2012).
20 Id.
21 Id.
22Land Bank of the Philippines v. Sps. Montalvan, et al., supra note 19 at 652.
23Coderias v. Estate of Juan Chioco, 712 Phil. 354, 370 (2013).