Case Study

Case Study

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 164025 May 8, 2009

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
HEIRS OF HONORATO DE LEON, represented by AMBROCIO DE LEON, Respondent.

The Problem:

After the issuance of Presidential Decree no. 27 by the late President Ferdinand Marcos, it was declared that land owners with agricultural lands of more than 7 hectares should give the rest to other farmers and only keep the remaining seven hectares. The late Honorato de Leon the registered owner of an agricultural land situated at Barangay Carmen, Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 10918-R that had excess land of 36.1238 hectares that was acquired by the Department of Agrarian Reform. It was also stated in P.D. no. 27 that the owner of lands to be distributed must be given just compensation. The heirs of Honorato de Leon complained that the land acquired by the Department of Agrarian Reform was not given just compensation.

Manifestations or Causes of the Problem:

The cause of the problem is the unfairness the respondents saw in the computation of compensation for the land they gave up for the obedience of the Presidential Decree no. 27 by the late President Ferdinand Marcos. The heirs of Honorato de Leon prayed for just compensation. Finding the land valuation offered by the DAR to be very low, respondents filed a complaint for the fixing of just compensation before the RTC of Cabanatuan City, sitting as a Special Agrarian. A certain Atty. Benjamin Baui, the Legal Officer of DAR-Cabanatuan City, also entered into a compromise agreement with herein respondents. The agreement, which was approved by the SAC on 29 June 2001 after petitioner failed to file a comment thereto, provided the payment of just compensation in the amount of P19,371,385.00. However the decisions were again changed. The problem became bigger due to the changeable decisions given by the courts.

Analysis and Evaluation

The case between the Land Bank of the Philippines and the heirs of Honorato de Leon is full of twist and turns due to the different decisions given by different courts. Without meditating on the case for sometime one cannot see clearly what the two sides are pointing about due to the many actions that took place before this case was filled. Terms like the certiorari wasn’t clear before. A Certiorari is a legal term in law that refers to the type of writ that seeks for review. A writ of certiorari currently means an order by a higher court directing a lower court, tribunal, or public authority to send the record in a given case for review.

On the side of the respondents here they only sought for just compensation basing on the way compensation should be computed in Presidential Decree no. 27, (a) an average gross production (AGP) of 195 cavans per hectare per year or 17,610.35 cavans for the entire 36.1238 hectares; (b) plus simple interest of 6% per annum for 20 years on the 17,610.35 cavans or 21,132.41 cavans; and (c) government support price of P500.00. Using the aforementioned values, respondents claimed that the total just compensation due them should be in the amount of P19,371,385.00.

The entry of Atty. Benjamin Baui, the Legal Officer of DAR-Cabanatuan City gave strength on what the respondents were fighting but it was not given prime importance although it was approved before since the SAC denied the motion for execution of the compromise judgment on the ground of oversight on the part of Atty. Baui regarding his authority to enter into a settlement.

The judgment was rendered ordering the Department of Agrarian Reform through the Land Bank of the Philippines to pay petitioners the total amount of one million eight hundred ninety-six thousand four hundred ninety-nine pesos and fifty centavos (P1,896,499.50), Philippine Currency without interests, representing the just compensation of the property with the total area of 36.1238 hectares located in Barangay Carmen, Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija, covered by TCT No. 10218.

Petitioner filed an appeal docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 77619, arguing that just compensation should be fixed based on the formula in P.D. No. 27 in relation to Executive Order No. 228, providing a government support price of P35.00. Using the said formula and the provision on interest under DAR A.O. No. 13, series of 1994, petitioner prayed that just compensation be fixed at P706,754.90.

Respondents questioned the authority of the Court of Appeals to give due course to the appeal, considering that the compromise judgment had not been set aside under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. In a Resolution dated 8 October 2004, the Court of Appeals affirmed its jurisdiction to take cognizance of petitioner’s appeal.

The decision of the court at that time was that the Court of Appeals Committed a grave error of law when it used different factors or data in the determination of just compensation of subject Riceland, in utter disregard of the evidence on record and the pertinent provisions of Presidential Decree no. 27 and Executive order no. 228.

The case was raised to the higher court and the question was the amount to be paid again since both parties are not satisfied by the court’s decision. In Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of the like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessments made by government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm workers and by the Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.

The road to decision making was really long but fortunately the court had already given their final decision that the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED and the decision and resolution of the court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77619 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Agrarian Case No. 98-AF is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Cabanatuan City, which is directed to determine with dispatch the just compensation due respondents strictly in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998.

The group is on the side of the respondents for most of us think that the compensation was really low compared to what was supposed to be given. The land-owners like the tenant farmers must be given agrarian justice.

Recommendation

The lower court before going to the higher court must review all data given to ensure that time isn’t wasted just for the utilization of land. Too much twist happened in the case which we think was bad for it further gave confusion to both sides. The Department of Agrarian Reform must also consider the side of the landowner and give just compensation for the land they acquired for tenant farmers. Though the owner’s land must be divided and only seven hectares should be left the owner’s rights must also be considered.

Conclusion

The case was confusing but the court gave a final decision that is in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998. Time was wasted but at least a fixed decision was made that would be for the better of both parties.