LAND BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES VS.
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 118712
OCTOBER 6, 1995
FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Separate petitions for review were filed by petitioners

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and Land Bank of the
Philippines following the adverse ruling by the Court of
Appeals in an agrarian dispute. Upon motion filed by private
respondents, the petitions were ordered consolidated.
• 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 (CARL, Republic Act No. 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, private respondents filed with this Court a
Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for
preliminary mandatory injunction.

• Private respondents 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
• Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals
promulgated on October 20, 1994, which granted private
respondents' Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus.

• Petitioner DAR maintained that Administrative Order No. 9

is a valid exercise of its rule-making power pursuant to
Section 49 of RA 6657. Moreover, the DAR maintained that
the issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit" by the
Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e)
of RA 6657.
• For its part, petitioner 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.

• The respondent court rendered the assailed decision in

favor of private respondents. Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration but respondent court denied the same.
Hence, the instant petitions.
ISSUE:

• Whether or not 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.
RULING:

• Yes, 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. 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.
• It is 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.
The immediate effect in both situations is the same, the
landowner is deprived of the use and possession of his
property for which he should be fairly and immediately
compensated. Fittingly, we reiterate the cardinal rule
that:
. . . within the context of the State's inherent power of
eminent domain, 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
• Wherefore, petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and
the appealed decision is AFFIRMED.