Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site for the establishment of a pilot farm and a housing project for provincial government employees. Pursuant to this resolution, the Province filed two separate expropriation cases against Ernesto and Efren San Joaquin. Procedural History: The Province filed a motion for a writ of possession. The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints, citing inadequacy of the offered price. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the Province to take possession upon deposit of P5,714.00. A writ of possession was issued. The San Joaquins' subsequent motions for relief and to admit an amended motion to dismiss were denied. The Petition: Before the Court of Appeals (CA), the San Joaquins sought to nullify Resolution No. 129, dismiss the expropriation complaints, and set aside the RTC orders denying their motions and allowing the Province to take possession. They also sought injunctive relief. The Solicitor General opined that while Presidential approval was not needed, the Department of Agrarian Reform's (DAR) approval was necessary for the housing project. The CA set aside the RTC's order allowing possession and ordered the suspension of proceedings until the Province obtained DAR approval for the conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use. Hence, the Province filed the present petition for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units is subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of the Agrarian Reform. Whether Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur is valid. Whether the expropriation cases should be dismissed on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered. Whether the RTC erred in denying the motion to dismiss and in issuing the writ of possession.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE insofar as it (a) nullifies the trial court's order allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondents' property; (b) orders the trial court to suspend the expropriation proceedings; and (c) requires the Province of Camarines Sur to obtain the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert or reclassify private respondents' property from agricultural to non-agricultural use. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED insofar as it sets aside the order of the trial court denying the amended motion to dismiss of the private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requirement of DAR approval for expropriation of agricultural lands: The Court held that local government units, exercising the delegated power of eminent domain under Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 (Local Government Code), are not required to obtain prior approval from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use before instituting expropriation proceedings. Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 grants local government units the authority to exercise eminent domain for public use or purpose without such a prerequisite. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657), particularly Section 65 thereof, which deals with the conversion of lands, applies to lands awarded under the agrarian reform program and requires applications from beneficiaries or landowners, not expropriating authorities. The Court emphasized that statutes conferring the power of eminent domain cannot be broadened or constricted by implication, and to require DAR approval would effectively allow the DAR to scrutinize the public purpose of expropriations by local government units, which is primarily a legislative determination. The Court also noted that restrictive statutes do not bind the sovereign or its political subdivisions unless expressly mentioned. On the validity of Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988: While the Court of Appeals did not explicitly rule on the validity of the resolution, its order to suspend proceedings pending DAR approval implicitly assumed the resolution's validity. The Supreme Court, in granting the petition, effectively upheld the validity of the resolution by allowing the expropriation to proceed, subject to the proper determination of just compensation. The Court found that the establishment of a pilot development center and a housing project constituted a public purpose or public use, aligning with the modern interpretation of these terms as public advantage, convenience, or benefit contributing to the general welfare and prosperity of the community. On the dismissal of expropriation cases due to inadequacy of price: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' setting aside of the trial court's order denying the amended motion to dismiss. This implies that the issue of inadequacy of price was not definitively resolved by the CA and was subject to further proceedings. The Supreme Court clarified that the fears of private respondents regarding compensation based on tax declarations were unfounded, citing previous rulings that declared such decrees unconstitutional. The Court reiterated that the rules for determining just compensation are those laid down in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which allow parties to submit evidence on their valuation. On the RTC's denial of the motion to dismiss and issuance of the writ of possession: The Court set aside the CA's ruling that nullified the trial court's order allowing the Province to take possession and ordered the suspension of proceedings. This means the Supreme Court reinstated the RTC's authority to issue the writ of possession, subject to the proper determination of just compensation. The Court's decision implies that the RTC did not err in proceeding with the expropriation and granting possession, as the primary issue revolved around the necessity of DAR approval, which the Supreme Court found to be absent.
Main Doctrine
Local government units, when exercising the delegated power of eminent domain under Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, are not required to secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform for the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use before instituting expropriation proceedings, as such requirement is not expressly provided for in either the Local Government Code or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.