January 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181091 : January 11, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RAFAEL M. CONCEPCION :
[G.R. No. 181091 : January 11, 2010]
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RAFAEL M. CONCEPCION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 11 January 2010:
G.R. No. 181091 (land Bank of the Philippines v. Rafael M. Concepcion).-
This case is about the applicability of Republic Act (R.A.) 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law to the determination of the amount of just compensation covering lands taken from their owners pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) 27.
Respondent Rafael M. Concepcion owned four parcels of titled lands in Pacalcal, Bamban, Tarlac, with a total area of 26.6497 hectares. In 1972. the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed these lands, pursuant to P.D. 27 and Executive Order (E.O.) 228, under Operation Land Transfer and transferred them to farmer-beneficiaries without paying Conception anything.
At that time, however, the DAR fixed the just compensation, using the formula: 2.5 multiplied by the government support price (GSP) of palay multiplied by the average gross production (AGP) per hectare of the three preceding agricultural years. The Barangay Committee on Land Productivity fixed the lands' AGP value at 80.66 cavans per hectare per annum, with GSP at P35.00 per cavan in 1972 pursuant to E.O. 228, resulting in the land value of P7.057.75 per hectare.
But Concepcion rejected the valuation. On August 31,1993 he filed a petition for summary administrative determination of just compensation before the DAR Adjudication Board. When the Board dismissed his petition, he filed a petition for eminent domain before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac, Branch 63, sitting as Special Agrarian Court.
On December 18, 1997 the RTC rendered judgment, pegging the just compensation for the lands at P100,000.00 per hectare. To come up with this value, the RTC fixed the AGP at 100 cavans per hectare per annum, higher than the 80.66 cavans per hectare per annum fixed in 1972, and raised the selling price of palay to P400.00 from P35.00. The RTC found the DAR's price of P7,057.75 per hectare too unrealistic considering the passage of time.
Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) which rendered judgment on November 23, 2006, setting aside the RTC decision and reverting the just compensation for the
lands at P7,057.57 per hectare plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum, compounded annually, from the time of taking on October 21, 1972.
On Concepcion's motion for reconsideration, however, the CA amended its decision on June 18, 2007, set aside its computation of just compensation, and remanded the case to the RTC for computation of such just compensation based on this Court's ruling in Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform[1] Its motion for reconsideration of the amended decision having been denied on January 2, 2008, petitioner Land Bank filed the present petition for review.
Land Bank alleges that the CA erred in ordering remand of the case to the RTC for computation of just compensation in accordance with the Meneses ruling. Since the subject properties have been acquired under P.D. 27, then the valuation of just compensation must be computed under P.D. 27 and E.O. 228, and not under R.A. 6657. Neither P.D. 27 nor E.O. 228 have been declared unconstitutional or invalid; thus, there is no other option for the courts but to apply the legally prescribed formula. Since the government acquired the property in 1972, the value of the land at that time should be considered in determining just compensation. Applying the valuation factors in R.A. 6657 would be improper as that would be retroactively applying said law even though P.D. 27 had already deemed the process of acquiring the properties as already completed except for payment of just compensation which is still under judicial consideration.
The only question presented is whether or not payment of just compensation to respondent Concepcion should be based on the value of the lands on October 21, 1972, the effective date of seizure as P.D. 27 provides, or on the value set by R.A. 6657 for lands covered by Operation Land Transfer.
The Court has ruled on this issue in previous cases. Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, cited by the CA, reiterates the ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad [2] and Office of the President v. Court of Appeals.[3] The Court held in those cases that the seizure of the landholdings were to be reckoned, not at the time of the effectivity of P.D. 27, but at the time of payment of just compensation. Further, the cases of Meneses and Natividad also called for the application of the provisions of R.A. 6657 in computing just compensation for properties expropriated under P.D. 27.
These previous cases also noted the inequitable situation faced by owners of ricelands subject of Operation Land Transfer, a situation similar to that of Concepcion. Their lands were taken from them in 1972 without payment of just compensation while the farmer-beneficiaries already enjoyed the fruits of the land even when ownership had not yet been transferred to them. But, although P.D. 27 ordained the emancipation of tenant-farmers as of October 21, 1972 and declared them owners of the land they tilled, they were required to pay the cost of the land before they could be issued titles to them. It was thus understood that just compensation needed to be paid first before ownership could shift to the farmer-beneficiaries[4]
Respondent Concepcion meantime filed an urgent motion for execution pending appeal, alleging that he is already 94 years old, sick, and in dire need of money to survive. He has asked the Court to order immediate execution of the RTC decision without prejudice to the final determination of just compensation. He cites Land Bank of the Philippines v. Gallego, Jr.,[5] where the Court ordered execution pending appeal of a judgment of P30,711,600.00 despite the fact that the issue of the amount of just compensation has not yet been finally settled.
The Gallego case cites Borja v. Court of'Appeals[6] which recognized that inordinate delay and advanced age (76 years) of the litigant are good reasons for ordering execution pending appeal. The Court is so minded in this case. More than 30 years have lapsed from the time Concepcion's lands were taken from him but he has yet to receive the compensation due him.
Since petitioner Land Bank has been willing to pay the amount of just compensation set by the CA in its original decision dated November 23, 2006, which amount would definitely be less than the probable result of the remand of the case to the RTC for a computation based on R.A. 6657, it would be safe to order in the meantime the immediate payment of such amount to respondent Concepcion, without prejudice of course to the amount to be finally judicially determined.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review and AFFIRMS the amended decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 18, 2007, which orders the remand of the case to the court of origin for determination of just compensation in accordance with the Court's ruling in Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The Regional Trial Court of Tarlac is ORDERED to conclude the proceedings with dispatch.
The Court, by way of execution pending appeal of this Decision, ORDERS petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines to pay respondent Rafael M. Concepcion effective immediately the amount of just compensation fixed by the Court of Appeals in its original decision dated November 23, 2006 at P7,057.75 per hectare plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum, compounded annually, from the time of taking on October 21, 1972.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 11th day of January 2010.
G.R. No. 181091 (land Bank of the Philippines v. Rafael M. Concepcion).-
This case is about the applicability of Republic Act (R.A.) 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law to the determination of the amount of just compensation covering lands taken from their owners pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) 27.
The Facts and the Case
Respondent Rafael M. Concepcion owned four parcels of titled lands in Pacalcal, Bamban, Tarlac, with a total area of 26.6497 hectares. In 1972. the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed these lands, pursuant to P.D. 27 and Executive Order (E.O.) 228, under Operation Land Transfer and transferred them to farmer-beneficiaries without paying Conception anything.
At that time, however, the DAR fixed the just compensation, using the formula: 2.5 multiplied by the government support price (GSP) of palay multiplied by the average gross production (AGP) per hectare of the three preceding agricultural years. The Barangay Committee on Land Productivity fixed the lands' AGP value at 80.66 cavans per hectare per annum, with GSP at P35.00 per cavan in 1972 pursuant to E.O. 228, resulting in the land value of P7.057.75 per hectare.
But Concepcion rejected the valuation. On August 31,1993 he filed a petition for summary administrative determination of just compensation before the DAR Adjudication Board. When the Board dismissed his petition, he filed a petition for eminent domain before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac, Branch 63, sitting as Special Agrarian Court.
On December 18, 1997 the RTC rendered judgment, pegging the just compensation for the lands at P100,000.00 per hectare. To come up with this value, the RTC fixed the AGP at 100 cavans per hectare per annum, higher than the 80.66 cavans per hectare per annum fixed in 1972, and raised the selling price of palay to P400.00 from P35.00. The RTC found the DAR's price of P7,057.75 per hectare too unrealistic considering the passage of time.
Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) which rendered judgment on November 23, 2006, setting aside the RTC decision and reverting the just compensation for the
lands at P7,057.57 per hectare plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum, compounded annually, from the time of taking on October 21, 1972.
On Concepcion's motion for reconsideration, however, the CA amended its decision on June 18, 2007, set aside its computation of just compensation, and remanded the case to the RTC for computation of such just compensation based on this Court's ruling in Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform[1] Its motion for reconsideration of the amended decision having been denied on January 2, 2008, petitioner Land Bank filed the present petition for review.
Land Bank alleges that the CA erred in ordering remand of the case to the RTC for computation of just compensation in accordance with the Meneses ruling. Since the subject properties have been acquired under P.D. 27, then the valuation of just compensation must be computed under P.D. 27 and E.O. 228, and not under R.A. 6657. Neither P.D. 27 nor E.O. 228 have been declared unconstitutional or invalid; thus, there is no other option for the courts but to apply the legally prescribed formula. Since the government acquired the property in 1972, the value of the land at that time should be considered in determining just compensation. Applying the valuation factors in R.A. 6657 would be improper as that would be retroactively applying said law even though P.D. 27 had already deemed the process of acquiring the properties as already completed except for payment of just compensation which is still under judicial consideration.
Question Presented
The only question presented is whether or not payment of just compensation to respondent Concepcion should be based on the value of the lands on October 21, 1972, the effective date of seizure as P.D. 27 provides, or on the value set by R.A. 6657 for lands covered by Operation Land Transfer.
The Ruling of the Court
The Court has ruled on this issue in previous cases. Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, cited by the CA, reiterates the ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad [2] and Office of the President v. Court of Appeals.[3] The Court held in those cases that the seizure of the landholdings were to be reckoned, not at the time of the effectivity of P.D. 27, but at the time of payment of just compensation. Further, the cases of Meneses and Natividad also called for the application of the provisions of R.A. 6657 in computing just compensation for properties expropriated under P.D. 27.
These previous cases also noted the inequitable situation faced by owners of ricelands subject of Operation Land Transfer, a situation similar to that of Concepcion. Their lands were taken from them in 1972 without payment of just compensation while the farmer-beneficiaries already enjoyed the fruits of the land even when ownership had not yet been transferred to them. But, although P.D. 27 ordained the emancipation of tenant-farmers as of October 21, 1972 and declared them owners of the land they tilled, they were required to pay the cost of the land before they could be issued titles to them. It was thus understood that just compensation needed to be paid first before ownership could shift to the farmer-beneficiaries[4]
Respondent Concepcion meantime filed an urgent motion for execution pending appeal, alleging that he is already 94 years old, sick, and in dire need of money to survive. He has asked the Court to order immediate execution of the RTC decision without prejudice to the final determination of just compensation. He cites Land Bank of the Philippines v. Gallego, Jr.,[5] where the Court ordered execution pending appeal of a judgment of P30,711,600.00 despite the fact that the issue of the amount of just compensation has not yet been finally settled.
The Gallego case cites Borja v. Court of'Appeals[6] which recognized that inordinate delay and advanced age (76 years) of the litigant are good reasons for ordering execution pending appeal. The Court is so minded in this case. More than 30 years have lapsed from the time Concepcion's lands were taken from him but he has yet to receive the compensation due him.
Since petitioner Land Bank has been willing to pay the amount of just compensation set by the CA in its original decision dated November 23, 2006, which amount would definitely be less than the probable result of the remand of the case to the RTC for a computation based on R.A. 6657, it would be safe to order in the meantime the immediate payment of such amount to respondent Concepcion, without prejudice of course to the amount to be finally judicially determined.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review and AFFIRMS the amended decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 18, 2007, which orders the remand of the case to the court of origin for determination of just compensation in accordance with the Court's ruling in Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The Regional Trial Court of Tarlac is ORDERED to conclude the proceedings with dispatch.
The Court, by way of execution pending appeal of this Decision, ORDERS petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines to pay respondent Rafael M. Concepcion effective immediately the amount of just compensation fixed by the Court of Appeals in its original decision dated November 23, 2006 at P7,057.75 per hectare plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum, compounded annually, from the time of taking on October 21, 1972.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 11th day of January 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] G.R.No. 156304, October 23, 2006, 505 SCRA 90.
[2] 497 Phil. 738,746(2005).
[3] 413 Phil. 711, 716 (2001).
[4] Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744 and 79777, July 14,1989, 175 SCRA 343, 390-391.
[5] G.R. No. 173226, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 680.
[6] G.R. No. 95667, May 8,1991, 196 SCRA 847, 851.
