Formula to determine just compensation in agrarain cases; trial and appellate procedures.

SP112472.pdf (application/pdf Object)


ENVERGA, et. al. vs. DARAB, et. al., CA-G.R. SP-No. 112472, Jan. 31, 2011
(Court of Appeals decision)


Excerpts:


"x x x.

In Heirs of Lorenzo and Carmen Vidad, et al. vs. LBP18,
citing LBP vs. Spouses Banal19, the Supreme Court held that the
procedure for the determination of just compensation under R.A.
No. 6657 commences with LBP determining the value of the lands
under the land reform program. Using LBP's valuation, the DAR
makes an offer to the landowner through a notice sent to the
landowner. If the landowner does not agree with the valuation
made by DAR, the latter shall conduct a summary administrative
proceedings to determine the just compensation for the land. The
landowner, the LBP and other interested parties are then required
to submit evidence to prove the same. Any party who disagrees
with the decision may bring the matter to the Regional Trial Court
sitting as a special agrarian court, which exercises original and
exclusive jurisdiction20 over all petitions for determination of
just compensation to landowners. This in essence is the procedure for
the determination of compensation cases under Section 16, R.A.
No. 665721, which reads:

Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. - For
purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following
procedures shall be followed:

a. After having identified the land, the landowners and the
beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the
land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or
registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place
in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place
where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the
offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in
accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18
and other pertinent provisions hereof.

b. Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of
written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the
landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform
the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
c. If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) shall pay the landowner the
purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he
executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the
government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and
other muniments of title.

d. In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall
conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine
the compensation for the land by requiring the landowner,
the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as
to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15)
days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of
the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for
decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30)
days after it is submitted for decision.

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.

The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of
the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
f. Any party who disagrees with the decision may
bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction
for final determination of just compensation.

Corollarily, in Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, et al.22, the
Supreme Court enunciated that the procedural short-cut taken by
the petitioner landowner therein who immediately filed a petition
before this Court without first availing of the remedies available
under the DARAB rules on just compensation cases finds no
justification both in law and in jurisprudence. In the said case, the
DAR Regional Director issued orders placing petitioner's land
under the coverage of R.A. No. 6657. However, instead of
questioning the said directives before the DARAB or its
adjudicator and the RTC sitting as SAC, petitioner went directly to
this Court. Hence, the High Court held that said procedural shortcut
was fatal to petitioner's cause of action. We quote:

On December 20, 1991, the petitioner filed a Petition
for Certiorari and Prohibition with Temporary Restraining
Order with the Court of Appeals to restrain the enforcement
and to annul the said two Orders of the DAR Regional
Director on the ground of lack or excess of jurisdiction,
alleging that the petitioner never filed a land transfer claim
and was not notified of nor heard in the execution of the
final survey plans and the valuation of her land.

x x x

Hence, the proper procedure which petitioner should
have taken is to move for a reconsideration of the orders of
the Regional Director, or to go directly to the DARAB, or to
its executive adjudicator in the region, the Regional Agrarian
Reform adjudicator (RARAD). Prior resort to these
administrative bodies will not only satisfy the rule on
exhaustion of administrative remedies, but may likewise
prove advantageous to the parties as the proceedings will be
conducted by experts... From there, the petitioner has yet
another forum available – the Special Agrarian Courts which
are the final determinants of cases involving land valuation
or determination of just compensation.
Thus, the procedural short-cut taken by the petitioner
which finds no justification both in law and in jurisprudence
must be considered fatal to the petitioner's cause of action.

xxx

In the case at bench, We find that petitioners indubitably
failed to file a petition before the RTC, sitting as SAC, for the
purpose of questioning the decision of the DARAB. Jurisprudence
is replete that it is the RTC which exercises original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners.23 However, petitioners immediately
resorted to this Court without first availing of the legal remedy
available under the special procedures provided under R.A. No.
6657. Consequently, the DARAB ruling has already attained
finality. This finds support in LBP vs. Martinez24, where the
Supreme Court ruled that the adjudicator's decision on land
valuation attains finality after the lapse of the 15-day period.
It may also be well to state that once a decision becomes
final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable, and
any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final
and executory judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction, including
the entire proceedings held for that purpose.25 A decision that has

x x x.