TOPIC: JUST COMPENSATION; EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, -versus- RAUL T. MANZANO, JOSE
R. JUGO, RAMON H. MANZANO, and HEIRS OF PILAR T. MANZANO,
respondents.
G.R. No. 188243, THIRD DIVISION, January 24, 2018, LEONEN, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner is one of the implementing agencies and the duly designated financial
intermediary of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, and the custodian of the
Agrarian Reform Fund.
The Department of Agrarian Reform is the lead agency that implements the
government’s agrarian reform program.
The respondents were the owners of 4 parcels of agricultural land planted with rubber
trees.
The enactment of RA 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law has placed
suitable agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP.
On January 12, 1998, respondents voluntarily offered their landholdings for agrarian
reform, proposing the selling price of PHP100,000 per hectare to the government. They
later lowered their offer to PHP83,346.76 per hectare.
DAR issued an Administrative Order to implement and fill in the details of the CARL.
The Admin. Order proves for the formula in computing just compensation for rubber
lands. DAR endorsed the matter of land valuation to Landbank. According to the
Landbank, respondents’ land were planted with more than 30-year-old rubber trees that
were no longer productive. Thus, Landbank gave a lower counter-offer to respondents
ranging from PHP21,414.66 to PHP66,118.06 per hectare.
Respondents refused to accept petitioner’s counter-offer. The matter of land valuation
was referred to the DAR Adjudication Board for preliminary determination of just
compensation.
In view of the deadlock on the purchase price, administrative cases for land valuation
were filed by the respondents against Landbank and DAR. These cases were endorsed
to the PAR Adjudicator of Isabela for summary administrative proceedings.
During the proceedings, respondents moved for the revaluation of their properties. The
PAR Adjudicator found merit in their motion and directed Landbank to conduct a
revaluation survey.
Landbank recomputed the value of the land, the total land value, however, posted a net
decrease. Respondents rejected the new valuation for being “too low and
unreasonable.”
The PAR Adjudication Board adopted Landbank and DAR’s revaluation, stating that this
was done in accordance with the relevant administrative issuances on land valuations.
According to the Board, respondents did not present contrary evidence to reject the
revaluation. It also ruled that should respondents disagree with its findings, they may
bring the matter to the RTC designated as Special Agrarian Court.
Respondents filed separate complaints for judicial determination and payment of just
compensation before the RTC Special Agrarian Court. The RTC consolidated the
complaints, and appointed 3 commissioners to examine and ascertain the valuation of
the properties. Meanwhile, Landbank deposited the judgment award, through cash and
Landbank bonds, as provisional compensation for the acquired properties. Respondents
later withdrew these amounts.
The commissioners conducted an ocular inspection of the area and interviewed some of
its occupants and tenants. The tenants and tillers said that the landholdings may be
sold from PHP180,000 to PHP200,000 per hectare if the rubber trees were young and
productive, while the less productive land with mature rubber trees may range from
PHP90,000 to PHP120,000 per hectare.
The commissioners conducted another ocular inspection. They were joined by the
Isabela City Assessor’s Office Assessment Operations Officer and respondents’ 2
representatives. The commissioners interviewed more people and other owners of
rubber lands in the neighboring areas to verify the declarations of the tenants and tillers
on their first inspection.
According to the commissioners, the figures were more or less the same fair market
value derived from the persons interviewed on the first ocular inspection and from the
findings of Cuervo Appraisers. Based on their findings, the commissioners gave the
following recommendation for the payment of just compensation. It also recommended
that the amount of just compensation be reckoned from the date the properties were
transferred to the Republic, until fully paid, and that DAR and Landbank pay all legal
fees and costs of the case.
Opposing the recommendations, Landbank filed its comment to the consolidated
Commissioners’ Report. Landbank argued that the just compensation. Should not be
more that respondents’ sworn valuation, as shown in their tax declarations.
The RTC substantially adopted the Consolidated Commissioners’ Report.
Landbank filed a Petition for Review before the CA. Meanwhile, respondents filed a
motion for execution pending appeal. The RTC issued an Order granting the motion for
execution pending appeal ruling that the ownership and possession of respondents’
properties were already transferred to the government in 1999. Subsequently, the
government through respondent DAR distributed and awarded the land to the tenant-
beneficiaries of the CARP. Consequently, petitioners were virtually deprived not only of
the beneficial use and enjoyment of the property but also the fruits and income thereof
since the land was taken in 1999. A denial of respondents’ Motion is an infringement of
their constitutional rights which in effect states that no private property shall be taken for
public use without payment of just compensation. If we add up the time difference from
the period of this judgment to the date when the issue of just compensation shall have
been decided with finality by the appellate courts, the delay would probably take more
than one decade or so before payment can be received by petitioners. Certainly, the
monetary value of respondents’ properties as fixed by this court will no longer be the
same if they are to be paid several years from the date their properties have been
taken.
Landbank filed an Urgent Verified Motion/Application for the Issuance of
TRO/Preliminary Injunction before the CA. The CA denied Landbank’s Urgent Motion.
Landbank did not appeal the CA Resolution but the RTC found Landbank liable for
indirect contempt for failing to comply with the writ of execution pending appeal. The
RTC maintained that it had the residual authority to resolve an incident that was
perfected before the appeal was given due course.
ISSUES:
1.) In determining just compensation, WON the RTC can simply adopt the
Consolidated Commissioners’ Report and WON it is mandated to follow the
formula prescribed under RA 6657
2.) WON there may be execution pending appeal
HELD:
1.) YES. Under Rule 67, the RTC may accept the Consolidated Commissioners’
Report, recommit it to the same commissioners for further report, set it aside and
appoint new commissioners, or accept only a part of it and reject the other parts.
The final determination of the RTC sitting as a Special Agrarian Court must be
respected.
The determination of just compensation is a judicial function which cannot be
curtailed or limited by legislation, much less by an administrative rule.
RA 6557 gives to the Special Agrarian Courts the original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation. Sec. 16
of the same law also provides that “any party who disagrees with the decision
may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of
just compensation.” The use of the word “final” in the statute should not be
construed to mean that the Special Agrarian Court serves as an appellate court
that must wait for the administrative agencies to finish their valuation. There is no
need to exhaust administrative remedies through the PAR Adjudicator, RAR
Adjudicator or the DAR Adjudication Board before a party can go to the Special
Agrarian Court for determination of just compensation,
2.) YES. The CA properly upheld the RTC’s issuance of a writ of execution pending
appeal.
The RTC found that the respondents have been deprived of their and since 1999.
They were dispossessed of the beneficial use, fruits, and income of their
properties, which were taken from them 19 years ago without compensation.
Thus, the denial of the execution pending appeal will infringe on their
constitutional right against taking of private property without just compensation.
Moreover, the just compensation is not wholly payable in cash, 65% of the
payments is in bonds, which will mature only after 10 years. By then, the
monetary value of the properties would no longer be the same. Denying the
execution pending appeal can also stall the payment of respondents’ properties
through the filing of frivolous motions and appeals.
Execution of a judgment pending appeal is governed by Sec 2(a) of Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court. Execution thereof is discretionary. As an exception to the rule
that only a final judgment may be executed, it must be strictly construed. Thus,
execution pending appeal should not be granted routinely but only in
extraordinary circumstances.
Thus, this Court agrees with the RTC that for reasons of equity, justice and
fairplay, respondents should be paid to enable them to cope up with the loss they
sustained as a result of the taking and for their economic survival.
