APO FRUITS CORPORATION and HIJO PLANTATION, INC.
, request of the DAR, issued TCTs and Certificates of Land Ownership
Petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS:
Apo Fruits Corporation (AFC) and Hijo Plantation, Inc. (HPI) are
the registered owners of five parcels of agricultural lands located in San
Isidro, Tagum, Davao Province
AFC and HPI voluntarily offered to sell the above parcels of land
to the government. After the initial processing at the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) of the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS)application of
AFC and HPI, it was referred to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
for initial valuation. AFC and HPI received separately from the DAR’s
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Davao province a notice of
land acquisition and valuation, informing AFC that the value of the
properties has been placed at P86,900,925.88 or P165,484.47 per
hectare while HPI’s properties were valued at P164,478,178.14.Both
AFC and HPI considered the valuations unreasonably low and
inadequate as just compensation for the properties.
AFC rejected the valuation for both TCTs No. T-113366 and
No.113359. AFC applied for the shifting of the mode of acquisition for
TCT No. 113359 from VOS to Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment
Scheme. HPI also rejected the valuation of its three parcels of land
covered by TCTs No. T-10361, No. T-10362 and No. T-10363.
Owing to the rejection by both AFC and HPI of LBP’s valuation,
the DAR requested LBP to deposit the amounts equivalent to their
valuations in the names and for the accounts of AFC and HPI. AFC
thereafter withdrew the amount of P26,409,549.86, while HPI withdrew
the amount of P45,481,706.76, both in cash from LBP. The DAR PARO
then directed the Register of Deeds of Davao to cancel the TCTs of AFC
and HPI to the said properties and to issue a new one in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines.
After the issuance of the certificate of title in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines, the Register of Deeds of Davao, upon the
Award to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
RTC BR. 2 TAGUM CITY
AFC and HPI filed separate complaints for determination of just
compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). Despite the
lapse of more than three years from the filing of the complaints, the
DARAB failed and refused to render a decision on the valuation of the
land. Hence, two complaints for determination and payment of just
compensation were filed by AFC and HPI before Branch 2 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City (acting as a Special Agrarian
Court), which were subsequently consolidated.
Summons was served to defendants DAR and LBP. The trial
court appointed as Commissioners persons it considered competent,
qualified and disinterested to determine the proper valuation of the
properties. DAR and LBP submitted their Answer
The pre-trial order issued by the trial court reads:This Court will
determine the all-embracing concept of Just Compensation, and whether
the plaintiff is entitled to damages, and also whether the value of the land
and improvements as determined by the Land Valuation of Land Bank
for the determination of just compensation, and whether the plaintiff has
violated Section 13 of DARAB new rules and procedure.
The commissioners conducted an ocular inspection. The court-appointed
commissioners submitted their appraisal report. The case was
considered submitted for decision.
After hearing, the trial court rendered a decision fixing the just
compensation for the 1,388.6027 hectares of lands and its improvements
owned by the plaintiffs AFC and HPI.
LBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration mainly on the ground
that the trial court based its valuation on the value of residential and
industrial lands in the area forgetting that the lands involved are
agricultural. LBP also sought a reconsideration of the award of attorney’s
fees, the interest on the compensation over the lands and the order of
the trial court regarding the payment of commissioners’ fees.
In an Order, the trial court modified its decision. Except for the
modifications, the consolidated decision stands and shall remain in full
force and effect in all other respects thereof.
● From this Order, LBP filed a Notice of Appeal which was
granted.
● Subsequently, the trial court, citing this Court’s ruling in the case
of "Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon,"that a petition for
review, not an ordinary appeal, is the proper mode of appeal
from a decision on the determination of just compensation
rendered by a special agrarian court, issued an Orderrecalling
its Order and directed LBP to file a Petition for Review within the
reglementary period. LBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration
claiming that the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. De
Leon was not yet final at that time; hence, it is not certain
whether the decision in that case would have a retroactive effect
and that appeal is the appropriate remedy. This was denied by
the trial court in its Order.
COURT OF APPEALS
LBP filed a Petition for Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP NO.
76222)before the Court of Appeals assailing the orders of the trial court.
The Court of Appeals found the petition of LBP meritorious. In a
decision, the Court of Appeals granted the petition and the assailed
orderswere NULLIFIED and, accordingly, SET ASIDE.
AFC and HPI filed a joint Motion for Reconsideration which
the Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution.
Earlier, DAR filed its own separate petition before the Court of
Appeals by way of a Petition for Review(CA-G.R. SP NO. 74879). In a
Resolution , the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure to
state the material dates under Rule 42, Section 2, of the Rules of Court.
1. The appellate court held:The importance of stating the material
dates cannot be overemphasized. It is only through a statement
thereof in the petition can it be determined whether or not the
petition was filed on time. For its failure to state the material
dates, the petition can and should be outrightly dismissed.
x xxx
1. The petition is also defective in that it failed to attach material
portions of the record as would support the allegations in the
petition. More specifically, copies of the alleged motion for
reconsideration filed by the DAR, the order denying it, and the
notice of appeal were not attached to the petition.
● The Decision became final and executory and entry of judgment
was issued by the appellate court.
SUPREME COURT
● On the other hand, from the decision of the Court of Appeals in
the Petition filed by LBP, AFC and HPI filed the Petition for
Review on Certiorari
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the filing by LBP of the Petition for Certiorari is
already barred by res judicata
2. Whether or not the ruling of the SC in the Arlene De Leon Case,
giving only prospective effect to its earlier resolution as to the
proper mode of appeal from decisions of Special Agrarian
Courts, is applicable in the instant case
RULING:
● AFC and HPI pray that the Decision and Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76222 be reversed and set aside
and that the Decision of the RTC in Agrarian Cases be declared
as final and executory.
● WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is
PARTIALLY GRANTED. While the Decision, dated 12 February
2004, and Resolution, dated 21 June 2004, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76222, giving due course to LBP’s
appeal, are hereby AFFIRMED, this Court, nonetheless,
RESOLVES, in consideration of public interest, the speedy
administration of justice, and the peculiar circumstances of the
case, to give DUE COURSE to the present Petition and decide
the same on its merits. Thus, the Decision, dated 25 September
2001, as modified by the Decision, dated 5 December 2001, of
the Regional Trial Court of Tagum City, Branch 2, in Agrarian
Cases No. 54-2000 and No. 55-2000 is AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
1. NO.
● The following are the elements of res judicata:
1. The former judgment must be final;
2. The court which rendered judgment must have jurisdiction
over the parties and the subject matter;
3. It must be a judgment on the merits; and
4. There must be between the first and second actions identity
of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.
● In this case, the third element of res judicata, i.e., that the
former judgment must be on the merits, is not present. It
must be remembered that the dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No.
74879 was based on technicality, that is, for failure on the part of
the DAR to state material dates required by the rules. Having
been dismissed based on a technicality and not on the
merits, the principle of res judicata does not apply. Res
judicata applies only where judgment on the merits is finally
rendered on the first.
1. NO.
● In the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon, decided
on 10 September 2002,
● respondents are the registered owners of a parcel of land. They
voluntarily offered the subject property for sale to the
government. Unable to agree on the valuation offered by the
DAR, respondents filed a petition with the RTC to fix the just
compensation. In due time, the RTC rendered judgment fixing
the compensation of the property.
● Before the Court of Appeals, the DAR and LBP filed separate
petitions. The DAR filed a Petition for Review of the decision of
the RTC. LBP raised the case on appeal to the Court of Appeals
by way of ordinary appeal.
● The petition of the DAR was given due course. On the other
hand, the Court of Appeals dismissed LBP’s ordinary appeal on
the ground that the same was erroneous.
● LBP filed a petition for review before this Court. In Land Bank,
we explained:A petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is
the proper procedure in effecting an appeal from decisions
of the Regional Trial Courts acting as Special Agrarian
Courts in cases involving the determination of just
compensation to the landowners concerned. Section 60 of
RA 6657 clearly and categorically states that the said mode of
appeal should be adopted. There is no room for a contrary
interpretation. Where the law is clear and categorical, there
is no room for construction, but only application.
● LBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In a Resolution of this
Court dated 20 March 2003, this Court emphasized the
prospective application of the Decision dated 10 September
2002, that a petition for review is the correct mode of appeal
from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts shall apply only
to cases appealed after the finality of this Resolution.
● Essentially therefore, the rule is that a decision of the RTC
acting as a Special Agrarian Court should be brought to the
Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review. The Court of
Appeals will no longer entertain ordinary appeals thereon.
However, this rule applies only after the finality of the
Resolution of this Court in Land Bank of the Philippines v.
De Leon dated 20 March 2003.
● In this case, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled when it gave
due course to the appeal of LBP. LBP’s Notice of Appeal was
filed on 27 December 2001. This was given due course by the
RTC in an Order dated 15 May 2002. LBP’s appeal was, thus,
perfected before this Court’s Resolution in the aforementioned
Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon case. Hence, the Court
of Appeals could give due course to LBP’s petition.