SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 226650, July 08, 2020
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF RENE DIVINAGRACIA, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: TRANQUILINO RENE, EMORY JUDSON IGNACIO, FELECIANO AND GINA, ALL SURNAMED DIVINAGRACIA, ALL REPRESENTED BY TRANQUILINO RENE DIVINAGRACIA AND SOFIA DIVINAGRACIA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated July 14, 2015 and the Resolution3 dated August 1, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 02495 that denied Land' Bank's Motion for Reconsideration.4chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:The RTC ruled that the arrangement between Land Bank and Spouses Divinagracia partook of the nature of an agreement of purchase and sale. Further, it held that the delay in the payment of the compensation claim was caused by Land Bank's unreasonable imposition of additional requirements when it was clear that time was of the essence considering that the Spouses Divinagracia needed the amount to settle their loan with PNB. Thus, it awarded actual damages in favor of Spouses Divinagracia representing the interest and penalties which increased the amount of the latter's loan with PNB.
1.) Ordering the nullification of the two (2) Deeds of Assignment, Warranties and Undertaking and the Landowners-Tenant Production Agreement and Farmers Undertaking (LTPA-FU) covering the 8.8 hectares of land owned by the plaintiffs covered by TCT No. T-22759 and TCT No. T-22761 and withdrawing the same from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer;
2. Ordering the defendant Land Bank of the Philippines to return to plaintiffs all amortization payments paid by the farmer/beneficiaries with interest of 6% per annum from the amount of P699,326.36 in actual damages plus interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
3. Ordering the defendant Land Bank of Philippines to pay plaintiffs, as actual damages, the amount of the total obligation of plaintiffs with PNB less Php134,666.69; P100,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as exemplary damages and P50,000.00 as Attorneys fees and litigation expenses.
SO ORDERED.13
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Iloilo City August 1, 2000 in Civil Case No. 16620 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. This Court DECLARES:Contrary to the findings of the RTC, the CA ratiocinated that the agreement was not simply for purchase and sale, but an exercise of the state's power of eminent domain thereby making the release of the land from the coverage of the agrarian reform program improper. Nevertheless, it was one with the RTC in declaring that Land Bank's requirement for additional documents from Spouses Divinagracia was unreasonable and violative of the latter's right to just compensation which necessitated payment within a reasonable time from taking. Thus, it ordered Land Bank to pay PNB the amount of P133,200.00 with interests as may be imposed thereon which corresponded to the Spouses Divinagracia's loan obligation to PNB; while the remaining balance of P1,466.69 shall be for the sole account of herein respondents.SO ORDERED.15
- That the Complaint for the Annulment of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the Withdrawal of the land from the Operation Land Transfer with Damages is hereby DISMISSED;
- The defendant-appellant is, however, ORDERED to pay the amount of indebtedness of plaintiffs-appellees in the amount of P133,200.00 that was not paid to PNB and interests that may be imposed thereon;
- That, on the other hand, the balance of P1,466.69 and interests thereon remains the sole responsibility of the plaintiffs-appellees.
A. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS ACQUIRED APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO MAKE ITS OWN DETERMINATION OF THE CASE[.]The lone and primordial issue raised by Land Bank for the Court's adjudication is the jurisdiction of the RTC over the complaint for withdrawal of respondents' land from the coverage of the Operation Land Transfer. Land Bank argues that it is not the trial court, but the Department of Agrarian Reform that has jurisdiction in the implementation of PD 27, and all agrarian reform matters, more particularly as in this caseāthe recall or cancellation of land ownership award and exclusion from the coverage of PD 27.
B. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE IN ITS DECISION[.]16
The rationale behind this rule is to enable an appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently, which would be impossible if a question, once considered and decided by it, were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any and every subsequent appeal. Without i, there would be endless litigation. Litigants would be free to speculate on changes in the personnel of a court, or on the chance of our rewriting propositions once gravely ruled on solemn argument and handed down as the law of a given case.22Veritably, the Court should not depart from the earlier ruling of the CA which upheld the RTC's jurisdiction over the case. As meticulously discussed in the RTC's Decision, the issue on jurisdiction had already been settled to wit:cralawred
The issue of whether the instant case falls within the jurisdiction of the court or of the Ministry (now Department) of Agrarian Reform was the subject of a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order filed by Defendant with the Court of Appeals which denied it in a decision promulgated on November 29, 1991. This decision became final on December 25, 1992 per Entry of Judgment dated May 13, 1992. This decision, therefore; is the Law of the case which renders this issue moot and academic.23Indeed, as correctly observed by the RTC, the CA's disposition that jurisdiction over the subject matter herein belonged to the RTC is now the law of the case which should not be disturbed and litigated once more through the instant petition.
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020.
1Rollo, pp. 14-48.
2Id. at 55-83; penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
3Id. at 115-118.
4Id. at 81-112.
5Id. at 56.
6Id. at 58.
7Id. at 59.
8Id. at 209-213.
9Id. at 152-160.
10Id. at 157-158.
11 See Decision dated August 1, 2000 of Branch 29, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City and penned by Judge Rene B. Honrado, id. at 129-151.
12Id. at 129-151; penned by Judge Rene B. Honrado.
13Id. at 150-151.
14Id. at 66.
15Id. at 82.
16Id. at 36.
17Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. v. CA, 522 Phil. 267, 273 (2006), citing Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 422 Phil. 334, 351 (2001).
18Id.
19Sps. Sy v. Young, 711 Phil. 444, 450 (2013).
20Id.
21 711 Phil. 444 (2013).
22Id. at 450, citing Zarate v. Director of Lands, 39 Phil. 747, 749-750 (1919).
23Rollo, p. 146.