POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

TITLE: LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CA FRANCISCO, R., J. FACTS: Private respondents HEIRS OF EMILIANO F. SANTIAGO 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 RA 6657, private respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction. They questioned the validity of DAR AO No. 6, and DAR AO No. 9, and sought to compel the DAR to expedite the determination of 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. Private respondents argued that AO No. 9 permits the opening of trust accounts by the Landbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or bonds as ordered by DAR. They also assail 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. ISSUE: 1) Whether or not CA erred in declaring as null and void AO No. 9 insofar as it provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposit in cash or in bonds. 2) 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 HELD: 1) No. Section 16(e) of RA 6657 provides as follows: 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. If it were the intention to include a "trust account" among the valid modes of deposit, that should have been made express, or at least, qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly deduced that a "trust account" is allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term "deposit". 2) Yes. 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. The irresistible expropriation of private respondents' properties was painful enough for them. But petitioner DAR rubbed it in all the more by withholding that which rightfully belongs to private respondents in exchange for the taking.

AQUINO.BANGI.CAEG.DE GUZMAN.EBORA.GAVINO.GOZOS.HERNANDEZ.HERRERA.HIZON.ISIDRO.LAGRAMADA.LASALA.MAGRATA. MAGPANTAY.MALAMUG.MIOLE.PABLO.PACETE.POSTRADO.RAMOS.TOLENTINO.VILLANO.VILLANUEVA.YAP.YU 2010-2011