CASE 33

Land bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals

Dept. of Agrarian Reform vs. Court of Appeals
FACTS:
Separate petitions for review were filed by the DAR and Land Bank following the
adverse ruling by the Court of Appeals, granting private respondents Petition for Certiorari
and Mandamus. However upon motion filed by Private Respondents, the petitions were
consolidated. Likewise, petitioner seeks the reversal of the Resolution, denying their motion
for reconsideration.
Private Respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR
and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform law .
Alleged lapses of DAR and land Bank with respect to the valuation and payment of
compensation for their land pursuant to the provisions of RA 6657, private respondents filed
a petition for Certiorari and mandamus with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction.
Private respondents argued that Administrative Order No. 9, Seried of 1990 was issued
without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion because it allows the opening of trust
accounts by the Lanbank, in lieu of depositing 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 Sec. 16-e of RA 6657. Private respondents also charge the fact
that the DAR and lanbank merely earmarked, deposited in trust or reserved the
compensation in their nmes as landowners despite the clear mandates that before taking
possession of the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or in bonds. The
respondent court rendered the assailed decision in favor of the private repondents .
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but respondent court denied the same.
ISSUE:
bonds

Whether or not the deposit may be made in other forms besides cash or Land Bank

RULING:

No.Clearly DAR overstepped the limits of its power to enact rules and regulations
when it issued . There is no basis in allowing the opening of trust fund 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 in CASH or in LBP bonds only. If it were the
intention to include a trust account among modes of deposit that should have been made
express.
The ruling of Association of Small landowners case merely recognized the
extraordinary nature of the expropriation to be undertaken under RA6657 thereby allowing a
deviation from the traditional mode of payment of compensation and recognized payment
other than cash. It did not dispense with the settled rule that there must be full payment of
just compensation before the tittle to the expropriated property is transferred.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there should be a distinction the deposit of compensation and determination
of just compensation.
RULING:
To withhold the right of the landowners to appropriate the amounts already
deposited in their behalf as compensation for their properties simply because ther rejected
the DARs valuation and that they havealready been deprived of the possession and the use
of such property is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain. It is unnecessary to
distinguish between deposit of compensation under Sec. 16-e and the determination of just
compensation under Sec. 18 for purposes of exercising the landowners right to appropriate
the same. The immediate effect in both situations is the same as the landowner is deprived
of the use and possession of his property for which he should be fairly and immediately
compensated.