JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, in her capacity as Assignee of FEDERICO C.

SUNTAY, NENITA
SUNTAY TAÑEDO and EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III,
Petitioners, vs.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 170220 November 20, 2006

FACTS: Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee of Federico C. Suntay over certain
parcels of agricultural land located at Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, with an area
of 3,682.0285 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). In 1972, a portion of
the said property with an area of 311.7682 hectares, was placed under the land reform
program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (1972) and Executive Order No. 228 (1987).

The land was thereafter subdivided and distributed to farmer beneficiaries. The Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the LBP fixed the value of the land at P5,056,833.54 which
amount was deposited in cash and bonds in favor of Lubrica. Nenita Suntay-Tañedo and
Emilio A.M. Suntay III inherited from Federico Suntay a parcel of agricultural land consisting
of two lots, namely, Lot 1 with an area of 45.0760 hectares and Lot 2 containing an area of
165.1571 hectares or a total of 210.2331 hectares. Lot 2 was placed under the coverage of
P.D. No. 27 but only 128.7161 hectares was considered by LBP and valued the same at
P1,512,575.05. Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties, hence the Office of the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted summary administrative
proceedings for determination of just compensation.

ISSUE: WON the determination of just compensation should be based on the value of the
expropriated properties at the time of payment.

HELD: Yes. Petitioners were deprived of their properties without payment of just
compensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite before the property can be taken away
from its owners.
The transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government are conditioned
upon the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of
the compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner. The
CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the
government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by
the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title
also remains with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either.
Petitioners were deprived of their properties way back in 1972, yet to date, they have not
yet received just compensation. Thus, it would certainly be inequitable to determine just
compensation based on the guideline provided by P.D. No. 227 and E.O. No. 228 considering
the failure to determine just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just
compensation should be determined in accordance with R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. No. 227
or E.O. No. 228, is important 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.

G.R. No. 118712 | October 6, 1995 | LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO L. YAP, HEIRS OF EMILIANO F. SANTIAGO,AGRICULTURAL
MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP., respondents.

FACTS:
The nature of the case is the consolidation of two separate petitions for review filed by
Department of Agrarian Reform and Land Bank of the Philippines, assailing the Court of
Appeal’s decision, which granted private respondents' petition for Certiorari and Mandamus.
Pedro Yap, Heirs of Emiliano Santiago, Agricultural Management and Development
Corporation or AMADCOR (private respondents) 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,
private respondents filed with the Supreme Court a petition questioning the validity of DAR
Administrative Order No. 6 (1992) and No. 9 (1990), and sought to compel the DAR to
expedite the pending summary administrative proceedings to finally determine 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. The Supreme Court referred the
petition to CA for proper determination and disposition. The CA found the following facts
undisputed:
Respondents argued that Admin. Order No. 9 (1990) was issued in grave abuse of
discretion amounting excess in jurisdiction because it permits the opening of trust accounts
by the Landbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible bank designated by
the DAR, the compensation for the land before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as
provided under Section 16(e) of RA 6657. 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 inbonds. On the other hand, petitioner DAR contended that Admin Order
No. 9 is a valid exercise of its rule-making power pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6657.
The issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit" by the Landbank was a substantial
compliance with Section 16(e) of RA 6657. Landbank averred that the issuance of the
Certificates of Deposits is in consonance with Circular Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 of the Land
Registration Authority where the words"reserved/deposited" were also used.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in declaring as null and void DAR Admin Order No. 9
(1990) insofar as it provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposit in
cash or in bonds
 2. Whether or not the CA erred in holding that private respondents are entitled as a
matter of right to the immediate and provisional release of the amounts deposited in
trust pending the final resolution of the cases it has filed for just compensation.

RULING: 1. NO. Section 16 (e) of RA 6657 provides:

Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. (e) 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 TCT in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines.
It is explicit 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.
There is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of
the term "deposit". The conclusive effect of administrative construction is not absolute.
Action of an administrative agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department
if there is an error of law, a grave abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a legislative enactment.
The function of promulgating rules and regulations may be legitimately exercised
only for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the law into effect. The power of
administrative agencies is thus confined to implementing the law or putting it into effect.
Corollary to this is that administrative regulations cannot extend the law and amend a
legislative enactment, forsettled is the rule that administrative regulations must be in
harmony with the provisions of the law. And in case there is a discrepancy between
the basic law and an implementing rule or regulation, it is the former that prevails.

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 (P 1,455,207.31 Pedro L. Yap/ P 135,482.12 Heirs of Emiliano Santiago/
P 15,914,127.77 AMADCOR), and notwithstanding that they have already been deprived of
the possession and use of such properties, is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain. It is
unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation under Section 16(e) and final
compensation under Section 18 for purposes of exercising the landowners' right to
appropriate the same. The immediate effect in both situations is the same; the landowner is
deprived of the use and possession of his property for which he should be fairly and
immediately compensated. Wherefore, petition is denied for lack of merit. Appealed
decision is affirmed.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

versus
HON. ELI G. C. NATIVIDAD et al.
G.R. No. 127198
May 16, 2005
  Caguiat, et al. (Los) filed a petition before the SAC for the determination of just
compensation for their AGRICULTURAL LANDS in Arayat, Pampanga
 The SAC ordered the DAR and LBP to pay the Los P30.00 per square meter as just
compensation
 LBP’S ARGUMENT:
*For purposes of agrarian reform the property was acquired on 21 October 1972, the
effectivity date of PD 27, therefore just compensation should be based on the value of
the property as of that time NOT at the time of possession in 1993
SUPREME COURT RULING:
. The seizure of the landholding DID NOT take place upon the date of effectivity of PD 27
but would take effect on the payment of just compensation (OP v. CA)
 The agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid
the Los has yet to be settled
 Considering the passage of RA 6657 before the completion of this process, the just
compensation determined and the process concluded under RA 6657
 RA 6657 is the applicable law with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect
(Paris v. Alfeche)
 It would be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline
provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR’s failure to determine the just
compensation for a consideration length of time
 Just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from
its owner by the expropriator
SAMUEL ESTRIBILLO, CALIXTO P. ABAYATO, JR., RONGIE D. AGUILAR, TACIANA D.
AGUILAR, ARTEMIO G. DE JUAN, ESTANISLAO DELA CRUZ, SR., EDGAR DUENAS, MARIO
ERIBAL, REYNALDO C. ESENCIA, EMMA GONZAGA, RUBEN A. IBOJO, SAMUEL
JAMANDRE, HILARION V. LANTIZA, ANSELMO LOPEZ, TERESITA NACION, CHARIE E.
NASTOR, NELSON L. NULLAS, CARLITO S. OLIA, ANA PATIÑO, ROBERTO T. PATIÑO,
ANTONIO P. ROCHA, FERNANDO C. RUFINO, PATERNO P. SAIN, CLAUDIO S. SAYSON, and
JOEMARIE VIBO,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and HACIENDA MARIA, INC.,
G.R. No. 159674, June 30, 2006

FACTS:
 The petitioners, with the exception of two, are the recipients of Emancipation Patents
(EPs) over parcels of land located at Barangay Angas, Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur. The two
other petitioners, Emma Gonzaga and Ana Patiño, are the surviving spouses of deceased
recipients of EPs over parcels of land also located at Barangay Angas, Sta. Josefa, Agusan del
Sur.
The parcels of land were formerly part of a forested area which have been denuded
as a result of the logging operations of respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc. (HMI). Petitioners,
together with other persons, occupied and tilled these areas believing that the same were
public lands. HMI never disturbed petitioners and the other occupants in their peaceful
cultivation thereof. HMI acquired such forested area from the Republic of the Philippines
through Sales Patent No. 2683 in 1956 by virtue of which it was issued OCT No. P-3077-1661.
On 21 October 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27 was issued mandating that tenanted
rice and corn lands be brought under Operation Land Transfer and awarded to farmer-
beneficiaries. HMI, through a certain Joaquin Colmenares, requested that 527.8308 hectares
of its landholdings be placed under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. Receiving
compensation therefor, HMI allowed petitioners and other occupants to cultivate the
landholdings so that the same may be covered under said law.
In 1973, the Department of Agrarian Reform conducted a parcellary mapping of the
entire landholdings of 527.8308 hectares covered by OCT No. P-3077-1661. In 1975 and
1976, the DAR approved the Parcellary Map Sketching (PMS) and the Amended PMS
covering the entire landholdings. HMI, through its representatives, actively participated in
all relevant proceedings, including the determination of the Average Gross Production per
hectare at the Barangay Committee on Land Production, and was a signatory of an undated
Landowner and Tenant Production Agreement (LTPA), covering the 527.8308 hectares. The
LTPA was submitted to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) in 1977.
Also in 1977, HMI executed a Deed of Assignment of Rights in favor of petitioners,
among other persons, which was registered with the Register of Deeds and annotated at the
back of OCT No. P-3077-1661. The annotation in the OCT showed that the entire 527.8308
hectares was the subject of the Deed of Assignment. In 1982, a final survey over the entire
area was conducted and approved. From 1984 to 1988, the corresponding TCTs and EPs
covering the entire 527.8308 hectares were issued to petitioners, among other persons.
In December 1997, HMI filed with the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(RARAD) of CARAGA, Region XIII, 17 petitions seeking the declaration of erroneous coverage
under Presidential Decree No. 27 of 277.5008 hectares of its former landholdings covered
by OCT No. P-3077-1661. HMI claimed that said area was not devoted to either rice or corn,
that the area was untenanted, and that no compensation was paid therefor. The 17 petitions,
which were later consolidated, sought for the cancellation of the EPs covering the disputed
277.5008 hectares which had been awarded to petitioners. HMI did not question the
coverage of the other 250.3300 hectares under Presidential Decree No. 27 despite claiming
that the entire landholdings were untenanted and not devoted to rice and corn.
 On 27 November 1998, after petitioners failed to submit a Position Paper, the RARAD
rendered a Decision declaring as void the TCTs and EPs awarded to petitioners because the
land covered was not devoted to rice and corn, and neither was there any established
tenancy relations between HMI and petitioners when Presidential Decree No. 27 took effect
on 21 October 1972. The Decision was based on a 26 March 1998 report submitted by the
Hacienda Maria Action Team. Petitioners’ TCTs and EPs were ordered cancelled. Petitioners
filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied. Petitioners appealed to the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) which affirmed the RARAD
Decision.
After the DARAB denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration, the latter proceeded
to the Court of Appeals with their Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Court of Appeals
denied and dismissed the petition.
Petitioners filed a "Motion for Reconsideration With Alternative Prayer with Leave of
Court for the Admission of Special Power of Attorney (SPA) Granted to Petitioner Samuel
Estribillo by his Co-Petitioners." The Court of Appeals denied the motion.
Petitioners now file this present Petition contending that there had been compliance
with Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
ISSUE:
Whether the EPs are ordinary titles which become indefeasible one year after their
registration.
HELD:
Yes. the court mentioned the ruling in the case of Ybañez v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, wherein it provides that certificates of title issued in administrative proceedings are
as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in judicial proceedings:
It must be emphasized that a certificate of title issued under an administrative
proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent, as in the instant case, is as indefeasible as a
certificate of title issued under a judicial registration proceeding, provided the land covered
by said certificate is a disposable public land within the contemplation of the Public Land
Law.
There is no specific provision in the Public Land Law (C.A. No. 141, as amended) or
the Land Registration Act (Act 496), now P.D. 1529, fixing the one (1) year period within
which the public land patent is open to review on the ground of actual fraud as in Section 38
of the Land Registration Act, now Section 32 of P.D. 1529, and clothing a public land patent
certificate of title with indefeasibility. Nevertheless, the pertinent pronouncements in the
aforecited cases clearly reveal that Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, now Section 32
of P.D. 1529 was applied by implication by this Court to the patent issued by the Director of
Lands duly approved by the Secretary of Natural Resources, under the signature of the
President of the Philippines in accordance with law. The date of issuance of the patent,
therefore, corresponds to the date of the issuance of the decree in ordinary registration cases
because the decree finally awards the land applied for registration to the party entitled to it,
and the patent issued by the Director of Lands equally and finally grants, awards, and
conveys the land applied for to the applicant. This, to our mind, is in consonance with the
intent and spirit of the homestead laws, i.e. conservation of a family home, and to encourage
the settlement, residence and cultivation and improvement of the lands of the public domain.
If the title to the land grant in favor of the homesteader would be subjected to inquiry, contest
and decision after it has been given by the Government through the process of proceedings
in accordance with the Public Land Law, there would arise uncertainty, confusion and
suspicion on the government’s system of distributing public agricultural lands pursuant to
the "Land for the Landless" policy of the State.
The same confusion, uncertainty and suspicion on the distribution of government-
acquired lands to the landless would arise if the possession of the grantee of an EP would
still be subject to contest, just because his certificate of title was issued in an administrative
proceeding. The silence of Presidential Decree No. 27 as to the indefeasibility of titles issued
pursuant thereto is the same as that in the Public Land Act where Prof. Antonio Noblejas
commented:
Inasmuch as there is no positive statement of the Public Land Law, regarding the titles
granted thereunder, such silence should be construed and interpreted in favor of the
homesteader who come into the possession of his homestead after complying with the
requirements thereof. Section 38 of the Land Registration Law should be interpreted to
apply by implication to the patent issued by the Director of Lands, duly approved by the
Minister of Natural Resources, under the signature of the President of the Philippines, in
accordance with law.
After complying with the procedure, therefore, in Section 105 of Presidential Decree
No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree (where the DAR is required
to issue the corresponding certificate of title after granting an EP to tenant-farmers who have
complied with Presidential Decree No. 27), the TCTs issued to petitioners pursuant to their
EPs acquire the same protection accorded to other TCTs. "The certificate of title becomes
indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the
issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent, x x x. Lands covered by such title may no
longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed to another
person."