LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEREDEROS DE CIRIACO CHUNACO DISTILERIA, INC.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
HEREDEROS DE CIRIACO CHUNACO

DISTILERIA, INC.
G.R. No. 206992, June 11, 2018
Gesmundo, J. | Third Division
NATURE OF THE ACTION: This is an appeal by certiorari seeking to reverse and set
aside the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals. The CA denied the petition
for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the Resolutions of the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, a case for preliminary determination of just
compensation.
FACTS: Herederos De Ciriaco Chunaco Distileria, Inc. was the owner of several parcels
of land with an aggregate area of 22.587 hectares situated at Barangay Masarawag,
Guinobatan, Albay.
In November 2001, respondent voluntarily offered for sale the subject lots to the
Republic of the Philippines under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Land
Bank of the Philippines, by virtue of its mandate under Republic Act No. 6657, came up
with the CARP compensation for the subject lands and offered the same to respondent
in the amount of P957,991.30. Upon receipt of the valuation of the properties,
respondent rejected the offered compensation.
In its Decision, the PARAD ruled in favor of respondent and held that the just
compensation for the subject lands should be P195,410.07 per hectare, or a total of
P4,455,349.00.
On April 12, 2004, petitioner filed a Petition for Judicial Determination of Just
Compensation8 before the Regional Trial Court, acting as Special Agrarian Court. It
argued that the PARAD erroneously arrived at the amount for the just compensation
without considering the formula set forth by the Department of Agrarian Reform.
On July 27, 2004, the PARAD issued an Order declaring that the decision was final and
executory. A Writ of Execution was issued by the PARAD.
On October 12, 2004, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the DARAB assailing
the order and writ of execution of the PARAD. Petitioner also argued that the petition
for certiorari was the valid remedy before the DARAB as it was stated in its Rules of
Procedure.
In its Resolution dated July 7, 2005, the DARAB denied the petition for lack of merit. It
held that the petition for determination of just compensation in the RTC-SAC was filed
beyond the fifteen (15)-day reglamentary period under Section 11, Rule XIII of the
DARAB Rules. The DARAB opined that the said petition was filed out of time because a
total of twenty-four (24) days had lapsed before it was filed, hence, the PARAD decision
on the just compensation already became final and executory.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for determination of just compensation in the RTC-
SAC prescribed
RULING: As earlier cited, in Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657, Congress expressly granted
the RTC, acting as SAC, the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowners. Only the legislature can recall that
power. The DAR has no authority to qualify or undo that. The DAR regulation simply
has no statutory basis.
While R.A. No. 6657 itself does not provide for a period within which a landowner can
file a petition for the determination of just compensation before the SAC, it cannot be
imprescriptible because the parties cannot be placed in limbo indefinitely. The Civil
Code settles such conundrum. Considering that the payment of just compensation is an
obligation created by law, it should only be ten (10) years from the time the landowner
received the notice of coverage. The Constitution itself provides for the payment of just
compensation in eminent domain cases. Under Article 1144, such actions must be
brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues. Article 1144
reads:
Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right
of action accrues:
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
Nevertheless, any interruption or delay caused by the government like proceedings in
the DAR should toll the running of the prescriptive period. The statute of limitations has
been devised to operate against those who slept on their rights, but not against those
desirous to act but cannot do so for causes beyond their control.
In this case, Dalauta received the Notice of Coverage on February 7, 1994. He then
filed a petition for determination of just compensation on February 28, 2000. Clearly, the
filing date was well within the ten-year prescriptive period under Article 1141.
It was also determined in Dalauta that the proper prescriptive period to file a petition for
judicial determination of just compensation under R.A. No. 6657 is ten (10) years
pursuant to Article 1144 (2) of the Civil Code. Considering that payment of just
compensation is an obligation created by law, it is only proper that the ten (10)-year
period start from the time the landowner receives the notice of coverage under the
CARP. In addition, any interruption or delay caused by the government, like
proceedings in the DAR, should toll the running of the prescriptive period. The statute of
limitations has been devised to operate against those who slept on their rights, but not
against those desirous to act but cannot do so for causes beyond their control.
In this case, respondent voluntarily offered for sale its twelve (12) parcels of land in
November 2001. Accordingly, the 10-year prescriptive period began at that moment
because respondent knew that its lands would be covered by the CARP. Thus, the
petition for judicial determination of just compensation filed on April 12, 2004 before the
RTC-SAC, which was even tolled by the proceedings before the PARAD, was squarely
and timely filed within the 10-year prescriptive period.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEREDEROS DE CIRIACO CHUNACO DISTILERIA, INC.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEREDEROS DE CIRIACO CHUNACO DISTILERIA, INC.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEREDEROS DE CIRIACO CHUNACO DISTILERIA, INC.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

HEREDEROS DE CIRIACO CHUNACO

You might also like