Department of Agrarian Reform v. Tongson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Carmen S. Tongson owned four parcels of agricultural land in Davao City, primarily devoted to rice and corn and covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27). In 1988, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) offered to pay respondent ₱9,000.00 per hectare, which she did not act upon due to her travel abroad. Upon her return in 1989, she discovered that her properties, except for orchard portions, had been taken over by DAR, with an acquisition cost fixed at ₱1,500.00 per hectare for Bayabas, Toril properties and ₱800.00 per hectare for the Wangan, Calinan property. DAR subsequently issued Emancipation Patents to farmer-beneficiaries. Procedural History: Respondent filed a Petition for determination of just compensation before the Special Agrarian Court (SAC). The SAC, through a Board of Commissioners, appraised the Bayabas properties at ₱75,000.00 per hectare and the Wangan property at ₱90,000.00 per hectare. The SAC ordered DAR to pay respondent ₱25,000.00 per hectare for the 30 hectares in Bayabas and ₱40,000.00 per hectare for the 20 hectares in Wangan, with legal interest from June 1, 1989. DAR appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that PD 27 and Executive Order No. 228 (EO 228) should govern the valuation. The CA affirmed the SAC decision, holding that Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) was applicable and that PD 27 and EO 228 had only suppletory effect. DAR's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner DAR sought review of the CA decision, arguing that the trial court erred in considering factors not existing at the time of taking (October 21, 1972) and that the valuation was exorbitant. DAR insisted that the computation should be based on PD 27 and EO 228.
Issue(s)
Whether Republic Act No. 6657, or Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228, should govern the determination of just compensation for lands acquired under PD 27, when just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA 6657. Whether the date of taking for the purpose of computing just compensation should be reckoned from October 21, 1972 (effectivity of PD 27) or from the issuance of the emancipation patents.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered the remand of the case to the Special Agrarian Court for further reception of evidence as to the date of the grant of the emancipation patents, which date shall serve as the basis for the computation of just compensation in accordance with the market-data approach pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicable law for just compensation: The Court reiterated its settled ruling that if just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657), then just compensation should be computed in accordance with RA 6657, even if the property was acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27). This is because RA 6657 made all prior laws pertaining to the agrarian reform program have only suppletory application. The Court emphasized that RA 6657 brought under its coverage all agricultural lands, including those where the agrarian reform process was initiated under PD 27 but not completed. The determination of just compensation under RA 6657 considers factors such as the cost of acquisition, current value of like properties, nature, actual use and income, sworn valuation by the owner, tax declarations, and assessments by government assessors, which is a more comprehensive approach than the formula under PD 27 and Executive Order No. 228 (EO 228). The Court cited Landbank of the Philippines v. Carolina B. Vda. de Abello, et al. and Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Angel T. Domingo in support of this principle, stating that the determination of just compensation in accordance with RA 6657 is imperative to ensure it is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken. On the date of taking for computation of just compensation: The Court clarified that the date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should not be reckoned from the effectivity of PD 27 on October 21, 1972, as contended by the petitioner. Instead, the date of taking should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the emancipation patents. The Court explained that an emancipation patent constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the grantee, and it is from this issuance that the grantee acquires a vested right of ownership, subject to the payment of just compensation to the landowner. This ruling aligns with the principle that the seizure of the landholding does not take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but rather upon the payment of just compensation. The Court noted that the exact date of issuance of the emancipation patents was not on record, necessitating the remand of the case to the Special Agrarian Court for further reception of evidence on this crucial date.
Main Doctrine
When just compensation for lands acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27 has not been settled prior to the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, the latter law shall govern the computation of just compensation. The date of taking for purposes of computing just compensation is reckoned from the issuance dates of the emancipation patents.