CASE DIGEST: Heirs of Tria v. Land Bank
G.R. No. 170245 : July 1, 2013
THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES DOMINGO TRIA AND CONSORCIA CAMANO TRIA, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents.
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
During their lifetime, the deceased spouses Domingo Tria and Consorcia Camano owned a parcel of agricultural land located at Sangay, Camarines Sur, with an area of 32.3503 hectares.
By virtue of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27, which mandated the emancipation of tenant-farmers from the bondage of the soil, the Government, sometime in 1972, took a sizeable portion of the deceased spouses property with a total area of 25.3830 hectares. Thereafter, respondent Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) undertook the distribution and eventual transfer of the property to thirty tenant-beneficiaries. In due time, individual Emancipation Patents were issued by respondent DAR in favor of the tenant-beneficiaries. Pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order (EO) No. 228, respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) made an offer on November 23, 1990 to pay petitioners, by way of compensation for the land, the total amount ofP182,549.98, broken down as follows:P18,549.98 of which would be in cash, and the remainingP164,000.00 to be satisfied in the form of LBP Bonds.
Not satisfied with the LBPs valuation of their property, petitioners rejected their offer and filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City claiming that the just compensation for their property isP2,700,000.00.
During trial, petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Judgment praying that respondent LBP pay them the amount of P182,549.98 pursuant to its previous offer. Hence, the RTC issued a Partial Judgmenton December 22, 1992 ordering respondent LBP to pay the amount ofP182,549.98.
Consequently, respondent LBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration against said Partial Judgment on the ground that the RTCs Order for it to immediately pay the amount ofP182,549.98 is not in accord with the provisions of Section 3 of EO No. 228 which requires payment of just compensation partially in cash and gradually through LBP Bonds.
Hence, the RTC issued an Ordergranting respondent LBPs motion for reconsideration.
In compliance with the RTCs Order, respondent LBP paid petitioners the total amount ofP309,444.97 in the form of managers checks, and the amount ofP43,524.00 in the form of LBP Bonds, representing the cash portion with interest earned from investment securities, and bond payment of the just compensation for the expropriated property, respectively.
In the course of the proceedings, the RTC appointed three Commissioners to compute and recommend to the court the just compensation to be paid for the expropriated property.
In their report, each of the three Commissioners adopted a different formula in their valuation for the expropriated property: (1) the Commissioner representing respondent LBP adopted the mode of computation provided under EO No. 228; (2) the Commissioner representing petitioners adopted the Sales Value Analysis Formula; and (3) the Commissioner representing the trial court used the Assessors Schedule of Value Formula.
In order to resolve the differences in their computation, the Commissioners obtained the average of their respective valuations and made a final recommendation ofP1,151,166.51 for the entire expropriated property.
However, neither the parties nor the RTC found the computation of the Commissioners acceptable. Resultantly, in a Decision6dated August 23, 1995, the RTC made its own computation by using the formula used by the Commissioner representing the LBP with the slight modification that it used the government support price (GSP) for one cavan of palay in 1994 as multiplier.
Not in conformity with the RTCs ruling, respondents interposed an appeal before the CA.
On March 31, 2004, the CA rendered a Decision7affirming the RTCs ruling. It held that the formula and computation adopted by the RTC are well in accord with the working principles of fairness and equity, and likewise finds ample support from the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the matter of determination of just compensation.
Nevertheless, upon a motion for reconsideration filed by respondents, the CA reversed itself and issued an Amended Decisiondated October 25, 2005, reversing its earlier ruling favoring the RTCs decision.
In its Amended Decision, the CA heavily relied in the Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines(Gabatin) ruling wherein this Court fixed the rate of the GSP for one cavan of palay atP35.00, the value of the corresponding produce at the time the property was taken in 1972.
Accordingly, petitioners filed before this Court a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Amended Decision rendered by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the valuation of the property for purposes of determining just compensation should be based on the GSP at the time the property was taken in 1972, in accordance with the Gabatin case?
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is reversed.
POLITICAL LAW: just compensation based on the government support price of palay
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Pacita Agricultural Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc.,we ruled that since the Gabatin case, this Court had already decided several cases in which it found more equitable to determine just compensation based on the GSP of palay at the current price or the value of said property at the time of payment. In this case, the Court used the standard laid down in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657(RA No. 6657) as a guidepost in the determination of just compensation in relation to the GSP of palay, viz.:
In Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, the formula under Presidential Decree No. 27, Executive Order No. 228 and A.O. No. 13 was applied. In Gabatin, the crux of the case was the valuation of the GSP for one cavan of palay. In said case, the SAC fixed the government support price (GSP) of palay at the current price ofP400 as basis for the computation of the payment, and not the GSP at the time of taking in 1972. On appeal therein by respondent Land Bank of the Philippines, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the SAC. The case was then elevated to this Court, wherein therein petitioners set forth, inter alia, the issue of whether just compensation in kind (palay) shall be appraised at the price of the commodity at the time of the taking or at the time it was ordered paid by the SAC. The Court declared that the reckoning period should be the time when the land was taken in 1972, based on the following ratiocination.
POLITICAL LAW: just compensation based on value of property
Since Gabatin, however, the Court has decided several cases in which it found it more equitable to determine just compensation based on the value of said property at the time of payment, foremost of which is Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, cited by the Court of Appeals in its Decision assailed herein.
In Natividad, the parcels of agricultural land involved were acquired from their owners for purposes of agrarian reform on 21 October 1972, the time of the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 27. Still, as late as the year 1993, the landowners were yet to be paid the value of their lands. Thus, the landowners filed a petition before the trial court for the determination of just compensation. The trial court therein ruled in favor of the landowners, declaring that Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 were mere guidelines in the determination of just compensation. Said court likewise fixed the just compensation on the basis of the evidence presented on the valuation of the parcels of land in 1993, not the value thereof as of the time of the acquisition in 1972. Therein petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines sought a review of the Decision of the trial court before this Court. This Court found that the petition for review of therein petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines was unmeritorious, to wit:
Land Banks contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on October 21, 1972, the time of effectivity of PD 27, ergo just compensation should be based on the value of the property as of that time and not at the time of possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office of the President, Malacang, Manila v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that the seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation.
Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) before the completion of this process, the just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche. [416 Phil. 473.]
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DARs failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.
In Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Court applied its ruling in Natividad. On the issue of the payment of just compensation, the Court adjudged:
As previously noted, the property was expropriated under the Operation Land Transfer scheme of P.D. No. 27 way back in 1972. More than 30 years have passed and petitioners are yet to benefit from it, while the farmer-beneficiaries have already been harvesting its produce for the longest time. Events have rendered the applicability of P.D. No. 27 inequitable. Thus, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 should apply in this case.
In the even more recent case, Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines, the Court also adhered to Natividad, viz.:
The Natividad case reiterated the Courts ruling in Office of the President v. Court of Appeals [413 Phil. 711] that the expropriation of the landholding did not take place on the effectivity of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972 but seizure would take effect on the payment of just compensation judicially determined.
Likewise, in the recent case of Heirs of Francisco R. Tantoco, Sr. v. Court of Appeals [489 SCRA 590], we held that expropriation of landholdings covered by R.A. No. 6657 takes place, not on the effectivity of the Act on June 15, 1988, but on the payment of just compensation.
Additionally, in the more recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat and Gloria Puyat, the Court again adhered to the ruling laid down in the abovementioned case. Here, the Court ruled that when the government takes property pursuant to PD No. 27, but does not pay the landowner his just compensation until after RA No. 6657 has taken effect in 1998, it becomes more equitable to determine just compensation using RA No. 6657 and not EO No. 228. Hence, the valuation of the GSP of palay should be based on its value at the time it was ordered paid by the SAC.
Considering that the present case involves a similar factual milieu as the aforementioned cases, the Court deems it more equitable to determine just compensation due the petitioners using values pursuant to the standard laid down in Section 17 of RA No. 6657.
Here, the property of the deceased spouses was placed under the land reform program in October 1972, and since then the land was parceled out and distributed to some 30 tenant-beneficiaries by respondents without effecting immediate and prompt payment. Clearly, the tenant-beneficiaries have already benefited from the land, while petitioners wait in vain to be paid. Unfortunately, it was only 19 years after the land was distributed by respondents that there was an action on the part of respondents to pay petitioners.
Also worth emphasizing is the observation made by the RTC
What the Court considers as unfair, however, is that portion of Section 2 of Executive Order No. 228 which fixed atP35.00 the price per cavan of 50 kilos of palay, which amount was the government support price for palay in 1972 when P.D. No. 27 took effect. What made the said portion of Executive Order No. 228 unfair and unjust is the fact that the landowner was not paid in 1972 and he has been deprived of his 25% share in the net harvest since 1972, until now.
Eduardo Ico, the [C]ommissioner representing the defendant Land Bank of the Philippines, modified the formula prescribed in Executive Order No. 228, by getting the average of the following values: (1) the total value of the land based upon the government support price ofP35.00 with interest of six (6%) per cent per annum, compounded annually from 1972 until 1994; and (2) the total value of the land based upon the present government support price ofP300.00 per cavan.
The Court finds that the said modification of the formula has no basis in fact and in law. To let the value of the land earn interest of 6% per annum would be fair enough had the price of palay remained the same. The fact, however, was that the price of palay had increased 857 times from 1972 to 1994, whereas 6% interest would mean only an increase of 138 times from 1972 to 1995. The Court does not see the justification for getting the average between the government support prices in 1972 and in 1995.
Needless to say, petitioners have been deprived of the use and dominion over their landholdings for a substantial period of time, while respondents abjectly failed to pay the just compensation due the petitioners.
THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES DOMINGO TRIA AND CONSORCIA CAMANO TRIA, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents.
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
During their lifetime, the deceased spouses Domingo Tria and Consorcia Camano owned a parcel of agricultural land located at Sangay, Camarines Sur, with an area of 32.3503 hectares.
By virtue of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27, which mandated the emancipation of tenant-farmers from the bondage of the soil, the Government, sometime in 1972, took a sizeable portion of the deceased spouses property with a total area of 25.3830 hectares. Thereafter, respondent Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) undertook the distribution and eventual transfer of the property to thirty tenant-beneficiaries. In due time, individual Emancipation Patents were issued by respondent DAR in favor of the tenant-beneficiaries. Pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order (EO) No. 228, respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) made an offer on November 23, 1990 to pay petitioners, by way of compensation for the land, the total amount ofP182,549.98, broken down as follows:P18,549.98 of which would be in cash, and the remainingP164,000.00 to be satisfied in the form of LBP Bonds.
Not satisfied with the LBPs valuation of their property, petitioners rejected their offer and filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City claiming that the just compensation for their property isP2,700,000.00.
During trial, petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Judgment praying that respondent LBP pay them the amount of P182,549.98 pursuant to its previous offer. Hence, the RTC issued a Partial Judgmenton December 22, 1992 ordering respondent LBP to pay the amount ofP182,549.98.
Consequently, respondent LBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration against said Partial Judgment on the ground that the RTCs Order for it to immediately pay the amount ofP182,549.98 is not in accord with the provisions of Section 3 of EO No. 228 which requires payment of just compensation partially in cash and gradually through LBP Bonds.
Hence, the RTC issued an Ordergranting respondent LBPs motion for reconsideration.
In compliance with the RTCs Order, respondent LBP paid petitioners the total amount ofP309,444.97 in the form of managers checks, and the amount ofP43,524.00 in the form of LBP Bonds, representing the cash portion with interest earned from investment securities, and bond payment of the just compensation for the expropriated property, respectively.
In the course of the proceedings, the RTC appointed three Commissioners to compute and recommend to the court the just compensation to be paid for the expropriated property.
In their report, each of the three Commissioners adopted a different formula in their valuation for the expropriated property: (1) the Commissioner representing respondent LBP adopted the mode of computation provided under EO No. 228; (2) the Commissioner representing petitioners adopted the Sales Value Analysis Formula; and (3) the Commissioner representing the trial court used the Assessors Schedule of Value Formula.
In order to resolve the differences in their computation, the Commissioners obtained the average of their respective valuations and made a final recommendation ofP1,151,166.51 for the entire expropriated property.
However, neither the parties nor the RTC found the computation of the Commissioners acceptable. Resultantly, in a Decision6dated August 23, 1995, the RTC made its own computation by using the formula used by the Commissioner representing the LBP with the slight modification that it used the government support price (GSP) for one cavan of palay in 1994 as multiplier.
Not in conformity with the RTCs ruling, respondents interposed an appeal before the CA.
On March 31, 2004, the CA rendered a Decision7affirming the RTCs ruling. It held that the formula and computation adopted by the RTC are well in accord with the working principles of fairness and equity, and likewise finds ample support from the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the matter of determination of just compensation.
Nevertheless, upon a motion for reconsideration filed by respondents, the CA reversed itself and issued an Amended Decisiondated October 25, 2005, reversing its earlier ruling favoring the RTCs decision.
In its Amended Decision, the CA heavily relied in the Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines(Gabatin) ruling wherein this Court fixed the rate of the GSP for one cavan of palay atP35.00, the value of the corresponding produce at the time the property was taken in 1972.
Accordingly, petitioners filed before this Court a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Amended Decision rendered by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the valuation of the property for purposes of determining just compensation should be based on the GSP at the time the property was taken in 1972, in accordance with the Gabatin case?
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is reversed.
POLITICAL LAW: just compensation based on the government support price of palay
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Pacita Agricultural Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc.,we ruled that since the Gabatin case, this Court had already decided several cases in which it found more equitable to determine just compensation based on the GSP of palay at the current price or the value of said property at the time of payment. In this case, the Court used the standard laid down in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657(RA No. 6657) as a guidepost in the determination of just compensation in relation to the GSP of palay, viz.:
In Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, the formula under Presidential Decree No. 27, Executive Order No. 228 and A.O. No. 13 was applied. In Gabatin, the crux of the case was the valuation of the GSP for one cavan of palay. In said case, the SAC fixed the government support price (GSP) of palay at the current price ofP400 as basis for the computation of the payment, and not the GSP at the time of taking in 1972. On appeal therein by respondent Land Bank of the Philippines, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the SAC. The case was then elevated to this Court, wherein therein petitioners set forth, inter alia, the issue of whether just compensation in kind (palay) shall be appraised at the price of the commodity at the time of the taking or at the time it was ordered paid by the SAC. The Court declared that the reckoning period should be the time when the land was taken in 1972, based on the following ratiocination.
POLITICAL LAW: just compensation based on value of property
Since Gabatin, however, the Court has decided several cases in which it found it more equitable to determine just compensation based on the value of said property at the time of payment, foremost of which is Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, cited by the Court of Appeals in its Decision assailed herein.
In Natividad, the parcels of agricultural land involved were acquired from their owners for purposes of agrarian reform on 21 October 1972, the time of the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 27. Still, as late as the year 1993, the landowners were yet to be paid the value of their lands. Thus, the landowners filed a petition before the trial court for the determination of just compensation. The trial court therein ruled in favor of the landowners, declaring that Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 were mere guidelines in the determination of just compensation. Said court likewise fixed the just compensation on the basis of the evidence presented on the valuation of the parcels of land in 1993, not the value thereof as of the time of the acquisition in 1972. Therein petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines sought a review of the Decision of the trial court before this Court. This Court found that the petition for review of therein petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines was unmeritorious, to wit:
Land Banks contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on October 21, 1972, the time of effectivity of PD 27, ergo just compensation should be based on the value of the property as of that time and not at the time of possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office of the President, Malacang, Manila v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that the seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation.
Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) before the completion of this process, the just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche. [416 Phil. 473.]
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DARs failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.
In Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Court applied its ruling in Natividad. On the issue of the payment of just compensation, the Court adjudged:
As previously noted, the property was expropriated under the Operation Land Transfer scheme of P.D. No. 27 way back in 1972. More than 30 years have passed and petitioners are yet to benefit from it, while the farmer-beneficiaries have already been harvesting its produce for the longest time. Events have rendered the applicability of P.D. No. 27 inequitable. Thus, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 should apply in this case.
In the even more recent case, Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines, the Court also adhered to Natividad, viz.:
The Natividad case reiterated the Courts ruling in Office of the President v. Court of Appeals [413 Phil. 711] that the expropriation of the landholding did not take place on the effectivity of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972 but seizure would take effect on the payment of just compensation judicially determined.
Likewise, in the recent case of Heirs of Francisco R. Tantoco, Sr. v. Court of Appeals [489 SCRA 590], we held that expropriation of landholdings covered by R.A. No. 6657 takes place, not on the effectivity of the Act on June 15, 1988, but on the payment of just compensation.
Additionally, in the more recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat and Gloria Puyat, the Court again adhered to the ruling laid down in the abovementioned case. Here, the Court ruled that when the government takes property pursuant to PD No. 27, but does not pay the landowner his just compensation until after RA No. 6657 has taken effect in 1998, it becomes more equitable to determine just compensation using RA No. 6657 and not EO No. 228. Hence, the valuation of the GSP of palay should be based on its value at the time it was ordered paid by the SAC.
Considering that the present case involves a similar factual milieu as the aforementioned cases, the Court deems it more equitable to determine just compensation due the petitioners using values pursuant to the standard laid down in Section 17 of RA No. 6657.
Here, the property of the deceased spouses was placed under the land reform program in October 1972, and since then the land was parceled out and distributed to some 30 tenant-beneficiaries by respondents without effecting immediate and prompt payment. Clearly, the tenant-beneficiaries have already benefited from the land, while petitioners wait in vain to be paid. Unfortunately, it was only 19 years after the land was distributed by respondents that there was an action on the part of respondents to pay petitioners.
Also worth emphasizing is the observation made by the RTC
What the Court considers as unfair, however, is that portion of Section 2 of Executive Order No. 228 which fixed atP35.00 the price per cavan of 50 kilos of palay, which amount was the government support price for palay in 1972 when P.D. No. 27 took effect. What made the said portion of Executive Order No. 228 unfair and unjust is the fact that the landowner was not paid in 1972 and he has been deprived of his 25% share in the net harvest since 1972, until now.
Eduardo Ico, the [C]ommissioner representing the defendant Land Bank of the Philippines, modified the formula prescribed in Executive Order No. 228, by getting the average of the following values: (1) the total value of the land based upon the government support price ofP35.00 with interest of six (6%) per cent per annum, compounded annually from 1972 until 1994; and (2) the total value of the land based upon the present government support price ofP300.00 per cavan.
The Court finds that the said modification of the formula has no basis in fact and in law. To let the value of the land earn interest of 6% per annum would be fair enough had the price of palay remained the same. The fact, however, was that the price of palay had increased 857 times from 1972 to 1994, whereas 6% interest would mean only an increase of 138 times from 1972 to 1995. The Court does not see the justification for getting the average between the government support prices in 1972 and in 1995.
Needless to say, petitioners have been deprived of the use and dominion over their landholdings for a substantial period of time, while respondents abjectly failed to pay the just compensation due the petitioners.
