Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > April 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14969 April 29, 1961 - LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION v. CEFERINO ASCUE, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14969. April 29, 1961.]

LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CEFERINO ASCUE and FELISA RAMOS DE ASCUE, Respondents-Appellees.

Lino R. Barbosa, for Defendant-Appellant.

Roxas & Sarmiento and Celestino Salangsang for Respondents-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. EMINENT DOMAIN; RESALE OF PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LANDS TO TENANTS; WHEN COURTS MAY SETTLE DISPUTE AS TO WHAT AREA SHOULD BE EXPROPRIATED. — Whenever a law is silent, as section 6 (2) of Republic Act No. 1400 is, on the implementation of the given right, it is to be assumed that, if the parties concerned cannot agree thereon, the issue between them shall be settle by the courts of justice. This is particularly true in connection with the condemnation proceedings authorized by Republic Act No. 1400, for the Rules of Court prescribe the procedure in cases of eminent domain, and it must presumed that this is the procedure contemplated by the framers of the law, there being therein nothing to indicate the contrary. In other words, the one seeking to exercise the right of eminent domain shall initially determine what property or portion thereof it wishes to be expropriated. The owner of the property may, in turn, object thereto for valid reasons, including the right to exclude an area of 330 hectares, in cases falling under Republic Act No. 1400. Once the issues have been joined, the court shall settle the same in accordance with the spirit and purpose of the law and the demands of justice, equity and fair play.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Appeal by petitioner Land Tenure Administration, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas.

Respondents Ceferino Ascue and Felisa Ramos de Ascue are the owners of "Hacienda Baha", with an area of 808 hectares, more or less, situated in the municipality of Calatagan, Province of Batangas. Alleging that some 96 tenants and/or occupants of said hacienda with about 500 dependents had asked that the same be acquired, for resale to them pursuant to Republic Act No. 1400, petitioner made representations with respondents for the acquisition of the aforementioned property. The negotiations failed, however, because the parties could not agree on, among other things, who would select the portion of 300 hectares exempted from expropriation under section 6 of said Act, reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Powers. — In pursuance of the policy enunciated in section two hereof, the Administration is authorized to:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Purchase private agricultural lands for resale at cost to bona fide tenants or occupants, or in the case of estates abandoned by the owners for the last five years, to private individuals who will work the lands themselves and who are qualified to acquire or own lands but who do not own more than six hectares of lands in the Philippines;

(2) Initiate and prosecute expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of private agricultural lands in proper cases, for the same purpose of resale at cost: Provided, That the power herein granted shall apply only to private agricultural lands as to the area in excess of three hundred hectares of contiguous area if owned by natural persons and as to the area in excess of six hundred hectares if owned by corporations: Provided, further, That land where justified agrarian unrest exists may be expropriated regardless of its area;

(3) Prepare a schedule of areas of family-size farm units, not exceeding six hectares each, for different crops in different localities; and

(4) Promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the successful implementation of the provisions of this Act." (Italics supplied.)

Hence, petitioner instituted the present special civil action for a declaratory relief. In its amended petition, petitioner prayed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . that this Honorable Court lay down the correct interpretation of Section 6(2) of Republic Act No. 1400, and/or affirm the right of your petitioner to select the residuary portion of 300 hectares of respondents’ estate that should pertain to them, and further prays for such other relief just and equitable in the premises."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon denial of a motion to dismiss filed by respondents herein, they submitted an answer assailing, inter alia, the propriety of the declaratory relief sought by the petitioner. Subsequently, respondents filed a motion for summary judgment. In due course, thereafter, the Court of First Instance of Batangas rendered judgment overruling respondents’ objection to the rendition of a declaratory judgment and holding that "section 6 (2) of Republic Act No. 1400 should be construed in such a manner as to authorize the owner of the private agricultural land to choose the 300 hectares of contiguous area which he desires to retain." Hence, this appeal by the petitioner.

As correctly adverted to in the decision appealed from, said section 6 (2) of Republic Act No. 1400 does not state, or even hint, who is entitled to choose the 300 hectares of contiguous area which a private landowner may retain for himself. His Honor the trial Judge rationalized, however, that, had the intention been to give the choice to petitioner herein, the lawmakers would have inserted a clear and express provision to such effect, for, being a limitation upon private ownership, the right of eminent domain must be strictly construed against the government; that the exemption from expropriation of an area of 300 hectares is a "recognition of the right of private property", which negates the choice of such area by the government; that such choice by the government might leave an affluent hacendero" with 300 hectares of "worthless and unproductive area", and reduce him to the condition of a "pecunious panhandler", an "eventuality" that "the law could not have envisioned" ; and that the lawmaker could not have intended to vest the courts of justice with the authority to make said choice, because this would "force the government to bring a court action everytime a disagreement" thereon arises and, hence, would be "productive of multiple suits."

We have considered carefully the reasons adduced in the decision appealed from, but we are unable to agree with the conclusion reached therein. Whenever a law is silent, as section 6(2) of Republic Act No. 1400 is, on the implementation of a given right, it is to be assumed that, if the parties concerned cannot agree thereon, the issue between them shall be settled by the courts of justice. This is particularly true in connection with the condemnation proceedings authorized by Republic Act No. 1400, for the Rules of Court prescribe the procedure in cases of eminent domain, and we must presume that this is the procedure contemplated by the framers of the law, there being therein nothing to indicate the contrary. In other words, the one seeking to exercise the right of eminent domain shall initially determine what property or portion thereof it wishes to be expropriated. The owner of the property may, in turn, object thereto for valid reasons, including the right to exclude an area of 300 hectares, in cases falling under Republic Act No. 1400. Once the issues have been joined, the court shall settle the same in accordance with law.

It is true that the latter does not give petitioner the right to determine what portion of respondents’ Hacienda shall be exempt from expropriation. Neither does it, however, give the owners of the Hacienda the authority to choose the portion that may be expropriated by petitioner, and this would be the effect of the decision appealed from. What is more, the conclusion reached therein would virtually vest in the landowner the power to defeat the purpose of Republic Act No. 1400, as set forth in section 2 thereof, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Declaration of policy. — It is the declared policy of the State to create and maintain an agrarian system which is peaceful, prosperous and stable, and to this end the Government shall establish and distribute as many family-size farms to as many landless citizens as possible through the opening up of public agricultural lands and the division and distribution of private agricultural lands where agrarian conflicts exist, either by private arrangement with the owners or through expropriation proceedings."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thus, for instance, in the case at bar, about 96 tenants and/or occupants of the Hacienda Baha have allegedly urged the acquisition thereof for resale to them. Presumably, these tenants and/or occupants wish to buy the portions respectively cultivated or held by them. Under the view held in the decision appealed from, respondents would have the right to exclude precisely such portions from the condemnation proceedings. Thus, agrarian conflicts or unrest may be provoked or sharpened instead of being forestalled or settled.

Lastly, when the bill that eventually became Republic Act No. 1400 was being considered in the House of Representatives, the question arose as to what would happen in the event that the Land Tenure Administration and the owner of the property sought to be expropriated could not agree on the portion to be taken by the government. Congressman Roy, one of the co-authors of the bill, replied that, in such case, the issue would have to be determined by "the court." Thereupon, Congressman Villareal inquired whether Congressman Roy would accept an amendment to the effect that the landowner shall be allowed to make the choice as to which portion shall be expropriated. The answer was in the negative (H.R. Congressional Record, Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 3548-3549, July 7, 1955). Although, subsequently, a proviso to the effect "that the landowner shall be entitled to select the portion that shall remain with him" was introduced in the House (Do., Do., No. 2, p. 3584, July 8, 1955), said proviso was excluded from the bill finally approved by Congress.

It is, therefore, our considered opinion that Congress did not intend to give the landowner the power to choose, either what portion shall be expropriated or what portion shall be exempted from expropriation; that, initially, the parties are, therefore, expected to try to reach an agreement, if they can, on the area to be expropriated and/or the area to be excluded from the expropriation proceedings; and that, in the event of disagreement, the courts of justice shall settle the issue, in accordance with the spirit and purpose of the law and the demands of justice, equity and fair play.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby modified in conformity with the view expressed herein, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 439 April 12, 1961 - LEDESMA DE JESUS-PARAS v. QUINCIANO VAILOCES

  • G.R. No. L-14158 April 12, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14324 April 12, 1961 - IN RE: WILLIAM LI YAO v. NARCISA B. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15705 April 15, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DY CHAY

  • G.R. No. L-15861 April 15, 1961 - LIM GIOK v. BATAAN CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-13325 April 20, 1961 - SANTIAGO GANCAYCO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15102 April 20, 1961 - ALFREDO GARCHITORENA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15950 April 20, 1961 - GERVACIO DAUZ v. FELIPE ELEOSIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16235 April 20, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS MAGDALUYO

  • G.R. No. L-16473 April 20, 1961 - FELISA QUIJANO v. JACINTO TAMETA

  • G.R. No. L-16739 April 20, 1961 - VICENTE PENUELA, ET AL. v. ERNESTO HORNADA

  • G.R. No. L-16777 April 20, 1961 - QUINTIN CHAN v. JUAN B. ESPE

  • G.R. No. L-14711 April 22, 1961 - SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE & MANILA RAILROAD CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-10367 April 25, 1961 - MARY MCD. BACHRACH v. PHILIPPINE TRUST CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12602 April 25, 1961 - LUIS PINEDA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12918 April 25, 1961 - SANTIAGO BALMONTE v. JULIAN MARCELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15123 April 25, 1961 - GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC. v. SATURNINO C. PINOON

  • G.R. No. L-15957 April 25, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ESPIRITU

  • G.R. No. L-16051 April 25, 1961 - FERNANDO GOCHOCO, ET AL. v. CHANG HIOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16733 April 25, 1961 - MANUELA MENDOZA ET AL. v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD CO.

  • G.R. No. L-17046 April 25, 1961 - JUAN ADUAN, ET AL. v. PANTALEON ALBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11406 April 26, 1961 - MARIANO J. SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-12822 April 26, 1961 - LIM BUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-12836 April 26, 1961 - MANILA TRADING AND SUPPLY CO. v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13143 April 26, 1961 - DEMETRIO CARPENA, ET AL. v. LUCIANO MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14756 April 26, 1961 - EMILIANO BALADJAY v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15381 and 82 April 26, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA MAYDIN

  • G.R. No. L-15410 April 26, 1961 - MANUEL M. ANTONIO v. MAURO SAMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15415 April 26, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO ABACITE, ET AL. .

  • G.R. No. L-15700 April 26, 1961 - CRESENCIA VDA. DE BAKIT v. VERONICO ASPERIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15872 April 26, 1961 - CITY OF MANILA v. ANTONIA EBAY

  • G.R. No. L-16234 April 26, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANITO FETALVERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16596 April 26, 1961 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. CITY OF DAGUPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16659 April 26, 1961 - ALFREDO REYES v. JOSE PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-16878 April 26, 1961 - JUAN SANCHEZ v. OSCAR DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. L-16963 April 26, 1961 - ROXAS Y CIA v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12236 April 28, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAULIO BERSALONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14793 April 28, 1961 - PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENT CHURCH v. JUANA MATEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15065 April 28, 1961 - CESAR D. MILITAR v. VENTURA TORCILLERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15139 April 28, 1961 - FELIX DE CASTRO, JR., ET AL. v. EMITERIO M. CASTAÑEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15877 April 28, 1961 - JOVENAL R. FERNANDEZ v. TAN TIONG TICK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15952 April 28, 1961 - SYBIL SAMSON, ET AL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16355-56 April 28, 1961 - IGNACIO GONZALES v. JOSE M. SANTOS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16560 April 28, 1961 - TOMAS BENAZA, ET AL. v. ZOILO BONILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10763 April 29, 1961 - DELFIN YAMBAO v. ANGELINA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11084 April 29, 1961 - ALEJANDRO QUEMUEL, ET AL. v. ANGEL S. OLAES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11499 April 29, 1961 - IN RE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GO BON LEE

  • G.R. No. L-11639 April 29, 1961 - DANIEL DE LEON v. JOAQUIN HENSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11765 April 29, 1961 - DAMASO DESCUTIDO, ET AL. v. JACINTO BALTAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12888 April 29, 1961 - R. F. NAVARRO v. SUGAR PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-13252 April 29, 1961 - CONSUELO TAN VDA. DE ZALDARRIAGA v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13515 April 29, 1961 - PAZ BACABAC v. VICENTE F. DELFIN, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13976 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO Z. OBALDO

  • G.R. No. L-13994 April 29, 1961 - VALERIO P. TRIA v. WENCESLAO A. LIRAG

  • G.R. No. L-14146 April 29, 1961 - NG LIAM KENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14220 April 29, 1961 - DOMINGO E. LEONOR v. FRANCISCO SYCIP

  • G.R. No. L-14421 April 29, 1961 - GUAGUA ELECTRIC LIGHT PLANT COMPANY, INC. v. COLLE CTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14603 April 29, 1961 - RICARDO LACERNA, ET AL. v. AGATONA PAURILLO VDA. DE CORCINO

  • G.R. No. L-14712 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO CORTES

  • G.R. No. L-14783 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL P. AMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14871 April 29, 1961 - FLORENCIA M. GUANCO v. SEGUNDO MONTEBLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14969 April 29, 1961 - LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION v. CEFERINO ASCUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15014 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-15171 April 29, 1961 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15225 April 29, 1961 - C. G. NAZARIO & SONS, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15347 April 29, 1961 - GENERAL BUS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. GREGORIO CUNANAN

  • G.R. No. L-15386 April 29, 1961 - JOSE L. UY v. PACITA UY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15394 April 29, 1961 - CESARIO DE LEON, ET AL. v. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15445 April 29, 1961 - IN RE: FLORANTE C. TIMBOL v. JOSE C. CANO

  • G.R. Nos. L-15490-93 April 29, 1961 - CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORPORATION v. JAIME T. BUENAFLOR

  • G.R. No. L-15506 April 29, 1961 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15515 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER M. PERETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15564 April 29, 1961 - PASCUAL STA. ANA v. EULALIO MENLA

  • G.R. No. L-15739 April 29, 1961 - EMILIANO LACSON, SR. v. JACINTO DELGADO

  • G.R. No. L-15768 April 29, 1961 - TALIM QUARRY COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. GAVINO BARTOLA BERNARDO ABELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15775 April 29, 1961 - TAN YU CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15960 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN REGINALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15973 April 29, 1961 - PERPETUA GARGOLLO v. ALFREDO DUERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16071 April 29, 1961 - RUFINO O. ABUDA v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-16137 April 29, 1961 - VIRGINIA AMOR, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16138 April 29, 1961 - DIOSDADO C. TY v. FIRST NATIONAL SURETY & ASSURANCE CO, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16221 April 29, 1961 - RODOLFO GERONIMO v. MUNICIPALlTY OF CABA, LA UNION

  • G.R. No. L-16422 April 29, 1961 - JUSTINA C. SANTOS, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16448 April 29, 1961 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY v. HONESTO G. NICANDRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16509 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16535 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANTALEON ELPEDES

  • G.R. No. L-17015 April 29, 1961 - GEORGE H. EVANS, ETC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17114 April 29, 1961 - JULIA M. NEIBERT v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-17202 April 29, 1961 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. v. COTO LABOR UNION (NLU), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17377 April 29, 1961 - FRANCISCO LAGUNILLA v. JUAN O. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18359 April 29, 1961 - CALIXTO DUQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.