Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Landbank vs. CA, G.R. No. 118712

    Uploaded by

    Aderose Salazar
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The opening of trust accounts for compensation is not compliant with RA 6657, which clearly mandates payment in cash or bonds be deposited before expropriation. 2) Private landowners are entitled to withdraw amounts deposited in trust pending final valuation, as withholding such funds while depriving owners of their land is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain. 3) Administrative Order No. 9 permitting trust accounts exceeded DAR's rule-making power and did not substantially comply with the clear terms of RA 6657 requiring cash or bond deposits before expropriation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Landbank vs. CA, G.R. No. 118712

    Uploaded by

    Aderose Salazar
    41 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The opening of trust accounts for compensation is not compliant with RA 6657, which clearly mandates payment in cash or bonds be deposited before expropriation. 2) Private landowners are entitled to withdraw amounts deposited in trust pending final valuation, as withholding such funds while depriving owners of their land is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain. 3) Administrative Order No. 9 permitting trust accounts exceeded DAR's rule-making power and did not substantially comply with the clear terms of RA 6657 requiring cash or bond deposits before expropriation.

    Original Description:

    Landbank vs. CA, G.R. No. 118712

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The opening of trust accounts for compensation is not compliant with RA 6657, which clearly mandates payment in cash or bonds be deposited before expropriation. 2) Private landowners are entitled to withdraw amounts deposited in trust pending final valuation, as withholding such funds while depriving owners of their land is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain. 3) Administrative Order No. 9 permitting trust accounts exceeded DAR's rule-making power and did not substantially comply with the clear terms of RA 6657 requiring cash or bond deposits before expropriation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    41 views3 pages

    Landbank vs. CA, G.R. No. 118712

    Uploaded by

    Aderose Salazar
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The opening of trust accounts for compensation is not compliant with RA 6657, which clearly mandates payment in cash or bonds be deposited before expropriation. 2) Private landowners are entitled to withdraw amounts deposited in trust pending final valuation, as withholding such funds while depriving owners of their land is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain. 3) Administrative Order No. 9 permitting trust accounts exceeded DAR's rule-making power and did not substantially comply with the clear terms of RA 6657 requiring cash or bond deposits before expropriation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 3

    Case Digest by: Salazar

    Landbank vs. CA
    GR No. 118712 | October 6, 1995
    Ponente: Justice Francisco

    DOCTRINE: There must be full payment of just compensation before the title to the expropriated
    property is transferred.
    Just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the
    land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt
    payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the
    consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more
    before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss.

    FACTS:

    Yap and Santiago (Private Respondents) are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by
    the DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive
    Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657). Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DAR and the Landbank
    with respect to the valuation and payment of compensation for their land pursuant to the
    provisions of RA 6657, Yap and Santiago filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer
    for preliminary mandatory injunction. They questioned the validity of DAR Administrative Order
    No. 6, Series of 1992 and DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990, and sought to compel
    the DAR to expedite the pending summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the just
    compensation of their properties, and the Landbank to deposit in cash and bonds the amounts
    respectively "earmarked", "reserved" and "deposited in trust accounts" for private respondents,
    and to allow them to withdraw the same.

    Yap and Santiago argued that Administrative Order No. 9 was issued without jurisdiction and with
    grave abuse of discretion because it permits the opening of trust accounts by the Landbank, in
    lieu of depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR, the
    compensation for the land before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided under Section
    16(e) of RA 6657. They also assail the fact that the DAR and the Landbank merely "earmarked",
    "deposited in trust" or "reserved" the compensation in their names as landowners despite the
    clear mandate that before taking possession of the property, the compensation must be deposited
    in cash or in bonds.

    DAR, however, maintained that Administrative Order No. 9 is a valid exercise of its rule-making
    power pursuant to Sec. 49 of RA 6657. Moreover, the issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit" by
    the Landbank was a substantial compliance with Sec. 16(e) of RA 6657 and the ruling in the case
    of Association of Small Landowners vs. Hon. Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Landbank declared
    that the issuance of the Certificates of Deposits was in consonance with Circular Nos. 29, 29-A
    and 54 of the Land Registration Authority where the words "reserved/deposited" were also used.

    CA rendered the assailed decision in favor of private respondents.


    Case Digest by: Salazar

    ISSUES AND RULING:

    1. Whether the opening of trust accounts is compliant with the mandate of Sec. 16(e)
    of RA 6657?

    -No.

    Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands —

    xxx xxx xxx

    (e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no
    response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the
    DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall
    take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue
    a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. . .

    It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP
    bonds". Nowhere does it appear, nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made
    in any other form. There is no basis in allowing the opening of a trust account in behalf
    of the landowner as compensation for his property because Sec. 16(e) of RA 6657 is
    very specific that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds".

    2. Whether the private respondents are entitled to withdraw the amounts deposited in
    trust in their behalf pending the final resolution of the cases involving the final
    valuation of their properties?

    -Yes. The attempt to make a distinction between the deposit of compensation under Sec.
    16(e) of RA 6657 and determination of just compensation under Sec. 18 is unacceptable.
    To withhold the right of the landowners to appropriate the amounts already deposited in
    their behalf as compensation for their properties simply because they rejected the DAR's
    valuation, and notwithstanding that they have already been deprived of the possession
    and use of such properties, is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain.

    Hence, the Court find it unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation


    under Section 16(e) and final compensation under Section 18 for purposes of exercising
    the landowners' right to appropriate the same.

    FALLO:

    WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of
    merit and the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
    Case Digest by: Salazar

    OTHER NOTES:

    1. The ruling in the "Association" case merely recognized the extraordinary nature of the
    expropriation to be undertaken under RA 6657 thereby allowing a deviation from the traditional
    mode of payment of compensation and recognized payment other than in cash.

    You might also like