OPINION: WRONG LAW
MANILA, APRIL 3, 2008 (STAR) A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison - This case is about an agricultural rice land subjected to land reform. The issues that arise here concern the date when the “taking” of the land should be reckoned and the law that should be applied in determining the just compensation for said land. These issues came up because the land here was taken by the government under PD 27 ordering the emancipation of tenant farmers and deeming them owners of the land they till as of October 21, 1972, but the land reform process was completed only after the passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) in 1988.
The subject land here consisted of 262.2346 hectares out of 300.4023 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of Domeng being tilled by tenant farmers. Pursuant to PD 27, the said land was taken by the government and awarded to the actual tillers who were declared full owners of the land they till under its agrarian reform program. Several Emancipation Patents were thereafter issued and annotated on the TCTs but only starting in the year 1990 up to 2000.
In 1994, the LBP prepared the Land Transfer Payment Form later superseded by the Claims Processing Form issued on April 29, 2002, where the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) fixed the just compensation of subject land at P2,086,735.09 using the guideline for just compensation embodied in PD 27 and implemented in E.O. 228 promulgated on July 17, 1987. The formula used by DAR was based on the Average Gross Production (AGP) per hectare x 2.5 harvests per year x P35 as Government Support Price (GSP) for one cavan of 50 kilos palay giving a land value of P7,999.25 per hectare.
Despite receipt of the partial payment of P1,845,999.71 in cash and bonds from Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Domeng rejected the final payment of P868,191.66 and instead filed a Petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for Determination and Payment of Just Compensation in accordance with the formula set in Section 17 of R.A. 6657 or the CARL which was passed in 1988.
After hearing, the RTC ruled that the date of the taking is not October 21, 1972 when PD 27 took effect but the issuance dates of the emancipation patents starting 1990 so that the formula to be used is that provided in the in Section 17 of RA 6657 or the CARL. The RTC adopted the AGP of 91.42 cavans per hectare certified by the DAR’s team leader in lieu of 41.67 cavans established by the Barangay Committee on Land Production using the current GSP and not the GSP in 1972 which was only P35 per cavan of P50 kilos palay. Was the RTC correct?
The RTC is correct in ruling that the provisions of RA 6657 should apply in the present case with PD 27 and EO 228 having suppletory effect. It is indeed the duty of the court to protect the weak and the underprivileged, but this duty should not be carried out to such extent as to deny justice to the landowner whenever truth and justice is on his side. The landowner’s right to just compensation should be balanced with agrarian reform.
The determination of just compensation in accordance with RA 6657 and not PD 27 and EO 228 is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.
There is no doubt that Domeng’s land was taken by the government under PD 27. However it was only in 1994 when LBP prepared the Land Transfer Payment Form which was superseded by the Claims Processing Form in 2002. It is a recognized rule that title to the property expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of just compensation. Hence the date of the taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the emancipation patents because it constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of the TCT in the name of the grantee and from which the grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in the landholding subject to payment of just compensation.
When RA 6657 was enacted into law in 1988, the agrarian reform process in this case was still incomplete as the amount of just compensation to be paid to Domeng had yet to be settled. Just compensation should therefore be determined and the expropriation process concluded under RA 6657. LBP should compensate landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP or as may be finally determined by the Court that should consider the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the landowner, the tax declaration and the assessments made by the government (Section 17). The partial payment of P1,845,999.71 should be deducted from the computation (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Domingo etc. G.R. 168533, February 4, 2008).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2008
by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved