Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA)

vs
Sweet Crystals Integrated Sugar Mills, Inc. (SCI)
x----------------------------------------------------------x

Background: This case involves an expropriation complaint filed by BCDA against the
three parcels of land possessed by SCIweet Crystals Inc.

Facts: In 1976, BAIDECO obtained a 3.7M worth of loan from the Philippine Veterans
Bank (PVB) PVB. PVB foreclosed the 14,173,182 sqm of the BAIDECO property for its
failure to settle its obligation to the latter. BAIDECO filed a case against PVB in 1981.
The court ruled in favor of PVB. It was in 1996 when PVB resume its operation and
attempted to consolidate the subject property. However, PVB was unable to
consolidate the title of subject property since the BAIDECO property was placed under
the coverage of the agrarian reform program.

The latter found out that parts of the BAIDECO property were covered under the Land
Reform Act and was already distributed to the land reform beneficiaries. PVB filed a
case for declaration of nullity of emancipation patents, transfer certificate of titles,
damages, and/or reconveyance, and/or reinstatement.

As part of the Land Reform Act, the beneficiaries will then be required to pay Land Bank
of the Philippines (LBP). LBP will then remit the same to the land owners. However,
LBP held back the payment for the property since the case was still pending.

In 1997, some of the Land Reform beneficiaries sold the land to Sweet Crystals Inc
(SCI) with an agreement that portion of it has to be kept by the sameSCI which will be
used to settle the beneficiaries’ obligation to LBP. TCTs were released by LBP, and
then the transfer of title to SCI was effectuated.

In 2005, the Supreme Court approved a compromise agreement dated Jan. 31, 2005
between PVB and BAIDECO. Based on the agreement, all disputed land will go to PVB
and will make additional payment to BAIDECO including interests and penalties.

After the agreement, PVB started talking to LBP. The initial offer of LBP was rejected by
PVB the dispute was elevated to Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) and the offer was then evaluated. PVB tried to expedite the decision
considering that DARAB might assess very low value to the property.

However, with SCTEX project of the government, parcels of land registered under the
name of SCI will be traversed by the expressway project. BCDA negotiated and offered
to the latter but they failed to come up with an agreement. BCDA then filed in court for
and appropriation case. On the other hand, SCI alleged that it was not opposing the
expropriation case but it is argueds that the value must be based on its actual market
value or selling price which is higher than the zonal valuation as basis for the payment
of expropriation.

In November 28, 2008, the Court decided in favor of BCDA, to retain the possession of
the disputed property and the just compensation will be awarded to PVB.

DISCUSSION

In an eminent domain/expropriation case and with respect to Rule 67 of the Rules

of Court, the law follows two stages, (1) Expropriation, which determines the
issue as to whether or not the property is subject for appropriation; and (2) Just
Compensation, which defines the full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from its owner by the expropriator.

Based on facts, it was argued by SCI that the value must be based on its actual
market value or selling price. We must note that the value should be based at the
time of the taking, not the present. Further, the true measure is not the taker’s
gain but the owner’s loss as defined by law. In our case, we invoked that the
value set by the court is not the value we expected. It should be understood that
the ascertainment of just compensation is a judicial prerogative . Such
prerogative gives them the right to dispense the ascertainment of just
compensation to the Board of Commisioners. It is only exempted in cases stated
in Rule 67 of the ROC.

On the most important aspect of this case , the issued Writ of Execution
surrendering the properties to the possession of BCDA is known that it has not
yet been complied by SCI per Sheriff’s Report.

With respect to Rule 39 of the ROC, the prescriptive period of the foregoing is
within five (5) years from the date of its entry. In our case, it is September 2017
and it requires us to surrender the title within the given period . The Sheriff’s
report only supports the contention of BCDA to surrender the title /s.

On the other note, we must know that the actual possession of property here is
already with BCDA.
All things considered, having the right to a five (5) years prescriptive period, the
appropriate suggestion is to contact the Sheriff of this case as a remedy to this
situation and to confirm the next possible action.

Status update on the

Writ of Execution

In September 2017, the Court issued a Writ of Execution ordering the permanent
possession of BCDA of the subject properties and the payment of just compensation to
PVB.

A Sheriff’s Report dated November 8, 2017 was issued stating that the Sheriff failed to
serve the Writ of Execution since SCI already changed their address. Further, on
November 22, 2017, he was able to serve said copy and was received by Ms. Malyn
Lagon.

In this case, since the issuance of Writ of Execution is considered final and executory,
SCI must comply with the court order. Failure to do so, SCI might be cited in contempt.

Status on the Order to

Surrender Title

In May 2019, the court issued an order regarding a Motion submitted by Atty. Untalan.
Also, it was pointed out that the return of the title was not yet done. It was advised by
the handling lawyer that the title must be subdivided first in order to prevent the other
parts of the properties in the expropriation as well. As of now, we are still waiting on the
update of Atty. Soo.

It must be noted that possible issues may arise if the title will not be surrendered. With
the movant claims, the court may issue an order declaring the TCT null and void for the
purpose of issuance of a new title with the annotation “buyer’s adverse claim.” As stated
in P.D. 1529 Section 107:

Section 107. Surrender of withhold duplicate certificates. Where it is necessary to issue

a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divests the title of
the registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary instrument cannot be
registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owner's
duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest may file a petition in court to compel
surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds. The court, after hearing, may order
the registered owner or any person withholding the duplicate certificate to
surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate or memorandum
upon such surrender. If the person withholding the duplicate certificate is not
amenable to the process of the court, or if not any reason the outstanding
owner's duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order the
annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu
thereof. Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of
the annulment of the outstanding duplicate. (Emphasis supplied)