September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 187859 : September 06, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DALISAY CHIONGLO SY :
[G.R. No. 187859 : September 06, 2010]
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DALISAY CHIONGLO SY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 September 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 187859 (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Dalisay Chionglo Sy). - This is a petition for review of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated November 27, 2008, remanding the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 23, sitting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC), for proper determination of just compensation.
Subject of controversy is one of three parcels of land, located in Taisan, Sipocot, Camarines Sur, registered in the name of Jose Chionglo, Sr. The property, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6831 (3244), has an area of 23.8330 hectares. After the death of Jose Chionglo, Sr. on February 3, 1991, his heirs voluntarily offered the land for sale to the government under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
A team composed of representatives from the Department of Agrarian Reform, Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee, and Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) made an initial valuation of the property at P895,697.70, which was not acceptable to the heirs.
After a summary administrative review, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Camarines Sur set the value of the property at P989, 206.26. The decision of the PARAD dated June 5, 1998 was sent to Jose Chionglo, Sr., through Norma Chionglo-Rodriguez, one of the heirs.
On November 18, 2002, the heirs of Jose Chionglo, Sr. wrote a letter to the PARAD, requesting for the reopening of the proceedings with regard to the land on the ground of lack of notice to all of the heirs.
On May 26, 2003; the PARAD denied the letter-request, stating that the heirs were duly notified of the decision dated June 5, 1998, and that the case could no longer be reopened considering that the PARAD decision had already become final and executory after the heirs failed to contest such valuation within the reglementary period.
Thereafter, one of the heirs, herein respondent Dalisay Chionglo Sy, filed a petition with the RTC, Branch 23, sitting as SAC, for the determination of just compensation of the subject property. She alleged that there was' lack of notice of the PARAD decision to all the heirs which amounted to denial of due process. She averred that, because of this, the decision had not become final.
On March 28, 2006, the SAC issued an Order dismissing the petition. The SAC ruled that the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period of 15 days from receipt of the notice of the PARAD decision, pursuant to Section' 11 of Rule XIII of the 1994 Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board Rules of Procedure.[2] The decision of the PARAD was received by Norma Chionglo-Rodriguez on November 10, 1998, so they had only until November 25, 1998, within which to file the petition before the agrarian court.
Aggrieved, respondent went to the CA which granted the petition.
Petitioner LBP filed the instant petition, alleging that the CA committed serious error in remanding the case, considering that the PARAD decision dated June 5, 1998 had become final and executory.
We affirm the CA decision.
The CA correctly ruled that the RTC, sitting as SAC, erred in dismissing the petition since it treated the petition as an appeal from the decision of the PARAD. It bears stressing that the petition is not an appeal from the PARAD final decision but an original action for the determination of just compensation for the property over which the SAC has original and exclusive jurisdiction[3]
In a plethora of cases, the Court has held that the valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial function. The original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SAC over petitions for the determination of just compensation cannot be subverted to the administrative agencies.[4]
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Dizon,[5] the Court explicitly explained that:
Section 57 of R.A. 6657 authorizes direct resort to the SAC in cases involving petitions for just compensation.[7] ' The SAC should conduct its own independent and thorough investigation of the evidence submitted before it by the parties, and not just rely on the decision of the PARAD, the administrative body that merely made a preliminary determination of the reasonable compensation. Following the formula laid out in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal, [8] a hearing by the SAC is, therefore, necessary for the reception of evidence in determining the valuation of the land.[9] Thus, the CA did not commit a reversible error when it remanded the case to the SAC for the proper disposition of the case.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED.
G.R. No. 187859 (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Dalisay Chionglo Sy). - This is a petition for review of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated November 27, 2008, remanding the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 23, sitting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC), for proper determination of just compensation.
Subject of controversy is one of three parcels of land, located in Taisan, Sipocot, Camarines Sur, registered in the name of Jose Chionglo, Sr. The property, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6831 (3244), has an area of 23.8330 hectares. After the death of Jose Chionglo, Sr. on February 3, 1991, his heirs voluntarily offered the land for sale to the government under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
A team composed of representatives from the Department of Agrarian Reform, Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee, and Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) made an initial valuation of the property at P895,697.70, which was not acceptable to the heirs.
After a summary administrative review, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Camarines Sur set the value of the property at P989, 206.26. The decision of the PARAD dated June 5, 1998 was sent to Jose Chionglo, Sr., through Norma Chionglo-Rodriguez, one of the heirs.
On November 18, 2002, the heirs of Jose Chionglo, Sr. wrote a letter to the PARAD, requesting for the reopening of the proceedings with regard to the land on the ground of lack of notice to all of the heirs.
On May 26, 2003; the PARAD denied the letter-request, stating that the heirs were duly notified of the decision dated June 5, 1998, and that the case could no longer be reopened considering that the PARAD decision had already become final and executory after the heirs failed to contest such valuation within the reglementary period.
Thereafter, one of the heirs, herein respondent Dalisay Chionglo Sy, filed a petition with the RTC, Branch 23, sitting as SAC, for the determination of just compensation of the subject property. She alleged that there was' lack of notice of the PARAD decision to all the heirs which amounted to denial of due process. She averred that, because of this, the decision had not become final.
On March 28, 2006, the SAC issued an Order dismissing the petition. The SAC ruled that the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period of 15 days from receipt of the notice of the PARAD decision, pursuant to Section' 11 of Rule XIII of the 1994 Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board Rules of Procedure.[2] The decision of the PARAD was received by Norma Chionglo-Rodriguez on November 10, 1998, so they had only until November 25, 1998, within which to file the petition before the agrarian court.
Aggrieved, respondent went to the CA which granted the petition.
Petitioner LBP filed the instant petition, alleging that the CA committed serious error in remanding the case, considering that the PARAD decision dated June 5, 1998 had become final and executory.
We affirm the CA decision.
The CA correctly ruled that the RTC, sitting as SAC, erred in dismissing the petition since it treated the petition as an appeal from the decision of the PARAD. It bears stressing that the petition is not an appeal from the PARAD final decision but an original action for the determination of just compensation for the property over which the SAC has original and exclusive jurisdiction[3]
In a plethora of cases, the Court has held that the valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial function. The original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SAC over petitions for the determination of just compensation cannot be subverted to the administrative agencies.[4]
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Dizon,[5] the Court explicitly explained that:
Under RA 6657, the Land Bank of the Philippines is charged with the preliminary determination of the value of lands placed under land reform program and the compensation to be paid for their taking. It initiates the acquisition of agricultural lands by notifying the landowner of the government's intention to acquire his land and the valuation of the same as determined by the Land Bank. Within 30 days from receipt of notice. the landowner shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. In the event the landowner rejects the offer, a summary administrative proceeding is held by the provincial (PARAD). the regional (RARAD) or the central (DARAB) adjudicator, as the case may be, depending on the value of the land, for the purpose of determining the compensation of the land. The landowner, the Land Bank, and other interested parties are then required to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land. The DAR adjudicator decides the case within 30 days after it is submitted for decision. If the landowner finds the price unsatisfactory, he may bring the matter directly to the appropriate Regional Trial Court.
xxxx
The jurisdiction of the Regional [Trial] Courts is not any less "original and exclusive" because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative determination. For that matter, the law may provide that the decision of the DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to courts cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of administrative action.
Consequently, although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTC-SACs, the jurisdiction of these designated courts to determine just compensation under Section 57 of RA 6657 is original and exclusive. Any effort to transfer this original jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to confer appellate jurisdiction on the RTC-SACs would be contrary to Section 57 and would result in void rulings. What adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to landowners, leaving to the courts the ultimate power to decide this question on the merits.[6]
Section 57 of R.A. 6657 authorizes direct resort to the SAC in cases involving petitions for just compensation.[7] ' The SAC should conduct its own independent and thorough investigation of the evidence submitted before it by the parties, and not just rely on the decision of the PARAD, the administrative body that merely made a preliminary determination of the reasonable compensation. Following the formula laid out in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal, [8] a hearing by the SAC is, therefore, necessary for the reception of evidence in determining the valuation of the land.[9] Thus, the CA did not commit a reversible error when it remanded the case to the SAC for the proper disposition of the case.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambongand Ramon R. Garcia, concurring; rollo, pp. 61-73.
[2] Section 11. Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just Compensation. -The decision of the adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary determination and payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to the Board [Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)] but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial Court designated as special agrarian court within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration.
[3] CA Decision, rollo, p. 67; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay, G.R. No. 157903, October 11. 2007. 535 SCRA 605.
[4] Heirs of Lorenzo and Carmen Vidad and Agvid Construction Co., Inc. v. Land Bank, of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166461, April 30, 2010; Land Bank of the Philippines v. J.L. Jocson and Sons. G.R. No. 180803; October 23, 2009, 604 SCRA 373; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rufino, G.R. Nos. 175644 & 5 75702, October 2, 2009; 602 SCRA 399; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay. supra; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, G.R. No. 164376, January 23, 2006. 479 SCRA 495.
[5] G.R. No. 160394, November 27, 2009, 606 SCRA 66.
[6] Id. at 73-74.
[7] Land Bank v. Belista, G.R. No. 16463], June 26, 2009, 591 SCRA 137.
[8] G.R. No. 143276. July 20, 2004, 434 SCRA 543.
[9] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Dizon, supra note 5, at 74-75.
