G.R. No. 194168. February 13, 2013.

* inasmuch as the property owner is made to suffer the consequences of being immediately
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES PLACIDO and CLARA deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually
DY ORILLA, respondents. receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Void Judgments; Judges; A void PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
contemplation of law, it is non-existent. Such judgment or order may be resisted in any   LBP Legal Services Group for petitioner.
action or proceeding whenever it is involved.―A void judgment or order has no legal and   Former Law Office for respondents.
binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent.
Such judgment or order may be resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it is PERALTA, J.:
involved. It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision1 dated April 17, 2009
final order; it may simply be ignored. In Metropolitan Waterworks & Sewerage System v. of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 70071, and the Resolution 2 dated
Sison, 124 SCRA 394 (1983), this Court held that: x x x “[A] void judgment is not entitled September 30, 2010 denying petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration. 3
to the respect accorded to a valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared The factual and procedural antecedents are undisputed:
inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none Respondents spouses Placido and Clara Orilla (respondents) were the owners of a
of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for parcel of land situated in Bohol, identified as Lot No. 1, 11-12706, containing an area of
any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. It is not entitled to 23.3416 hectares and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18401. In the latter part
enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to those who seek to enforce. All proceedings of November 1996, the Department of Agrarian Reform Provincial Agrarian Reform Office
founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. In other words, a void (DAR-PARO) of Bohol sent respondents a Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition dated
judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there were November 15, 1996 informing them of the compulsory acquisition of 21.1289 hectares of
no judgments. It, accordingly, leaves the parties litigants in the same position they were in their landholdings pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (Republic Act
before the trial.” [RA] 6657) for P371,154.99 as compensation based on the valuation made by petitioner
Same; Same; Same; Same; A void judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).4
source of any right nor of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims However, respondents rejected the said valuation. Consequently, a summary hearing
emanating from it have no legal effect.―Accordingly, a void judgment is no judgment at was conducted by the Provincial Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
all. It cannot be the source of any right nor of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant (Provincial DARAB) to determine the amount of just compensation. After the proceedings,
to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become the Provincial DARAB affirmed the valuation made by the petitioner. 5
final, and any writ of execution based on it is void: “x x x it may be said to be a lawless Not content with the decision, respondents filed an action for the determination of just
thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and compensation before the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City sitting as a Special
whenever it exhibits its head.” Agrarian Court (SAC). The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 6085 and was raffled to
Agrarian Reform; Just Compensation; The concept of just compensation embraces Branch 3.
not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but
also payment within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, After trial on the merits, the SAC rendered a Decision dated November 20, 2000, the
compensation cannot be considered “just” inasmuch as the property owner is made to dispositive portion of which reads:
suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered fixing the just compensation of the land
wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his of petitioner subject matter of the instant action at P7.00 per square meter, as only prayed
loss.―Should the SAC find the said valuation too low and determine a higher valuation for for, which shall earn legal interest from the filing of the complaint until the same shall have
the subject property, petitioner should pay respondents the difference. Conversely, should been fully paid. Furthermore, respondents are hereby ordered to jointly and solidarily
the SAC determine that the valuation was too high, respondents should return the excess. indemnify the petitioners their expenses for attorney’s fee and contract fee in the conduct
To be sure, the concept of just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the appraisal of the land by a duly licensed real estate appraiser Angelo G. Fajardo of
of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also payment within a reasonable which petitioner shall submit a bill of costs therefor for the approval of the Court.
time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered “just” SO ORDERED.6
1|Page
 On December 11, 2000, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. Subsequently, on WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated July 29, 2002, is
December 15, 2000, respondents filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, pursuant to AFFIRMED.16
Section 2, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the consolidated cases
of Landbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. 7 and Department of Agrarian Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but was denied with finality by the
Reform v. Court of Appeals, et al.8 Respondents argued that the total amount of Court.
P1,479,023.00, which is equivalent to P7.00 per square meter for 21.1289 hectares, Meanwhile, in CA-G.R. CV No. 70071, the CA rendered a Decision 17 dated April 17,
adjudged by the SAC as just compensation, could then be withdrawn under the authority of 2009, granting the appeal filed by the petitioner. The dispositive portion reads:
the aforementioned case.9 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The assailed
On December 21, 2000, the SAC issued an Order granting the Motion for Execution decision of the Regional Trial Court sitting as Special Agrarian Court is hereby SET
Pending Appeal, the dispositive of which reads: ASIDE.
WHEREFORE, the herein motion is granted and the petitioners are hereby ordered to This case is REMANDED to the trial court for the proper determination of just
post bond equivalent to one-half of the amount due them by virtue of the decision in this compensation for the land taken.
case. The respondent Land Bank of the Philippines, is therefore, ordered to immediately SO ORDERED.18
deposit with any accessible bank, as may be designated by respondent DAR, in cash or in The CA held that there was no valid and sufficient legal basis for the SAC in fixing the
any governmental financial instrument the total amount due the petitioner-spouses as may just compensation for the subject property at P1,479,023.00. Thus, the CA remanded the
be computed within the parameters of Sec. 18(1) of RA 6657. Furthermore, pursuant to the case to the SAC for the proper determination of just compensation.
Supreme Court decisions in “Landbank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al.” _______________
G.R. No. 118712, promulgated on October 6, 1995 and “Department of Agrarian Reform In disposing the case, the CA also took into consideration the Motion for Execution
vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,” G.R. No. 118745, promulgated on October 6, 1995, the Pending Appeal that was granted earlier by the SAC and affirmed by the CA and this
petitioners may withdraw the same for their use and benefit consequent to their right of Court, to wit:
ownership thereof.10 Finally, the petitioners-appellees filed a Manifestation for Early Resolution before this
On December 25, 2000, respondents filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court revealing that the petitioners-appellees filed before the SAC a motion for execution
amount of the bond to be posted, but it was later denied in an Order dated January 11, pending appeal which was granted. This Court affirmed the decision of the SAC.
2001.11 Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Therefore,
For its part, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was likewise denied in should the SAC find upon recomputation that the just compensation previously rendered is
an Order dated December 29, 2000.12 bigger than the recomputed value, the petitioners-appellees are ordered to return the excess
On March 13, 2001, petitioner filed with the CA a special civil action for certiorari and considering that payment may already have been given by LBP in pursuant to the finality
prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with prayer for issuance of a temporary of the motion for execution pending appeal.19
restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. It questioned the propriety of the SAC Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. 20 Petitioner argued
Order granting the execution pending appeal.13 that when the CA set aside the valuation of the SAC amounting to P1,479,023.00, it
In its Decision dated July 29, 2002, the CA dismissed the petition on the ground that necessarily follows that said amount can no longer be the subject of an execution pending
the assailed SAC Order dated December 21, 2000 granting execution pending appeal was appeal. Petitioner theorized that by annulling the SAC decision and, consequently,
consistent with justice, fairness, and equity, as respondents had been deprived of the use remanding the case to the trial court, the latter’s decision was voided and, therefore, it
and possession of their property, pursuant to RA 6657 and are entitled to be immediately could no longer be executed.
compensated with the amount as determined by the SAC under the principle of “prompt On September 30, 2010, the CA issued a Resolution21 denying the motion. The CA held
payment” of just compensation. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was that the issue of the validity of the writ of execution was already resolved by the Supreme
denied.14 Court with finality in G.R. No. 157206. That was precisely the reason why it stated in the
Petitioner then sought recourse before this Court in a petition docketed as G.R. No. decision that “should the SAC find upon recomputation that the just compensation
157206. After due proceedings, this Court rendered a Decision 15 dated June 27, 2008, previously rendered is bigger than the recomputed value, the petitioners-appellees are
affirming the decision of the CA. The decretal portion reads:

2|Page
ordered to return the excess, considering that payment may already have been given by the and voided the Decision of the RTC fixing the amount of just compensation for the subject
LBP in pursuant to the finality of the motion for execution pending appeal.”22 property. As correctly argued by petitioner, being the fruit of a void judgment such amount
Hence, the petition assigning the lone error: cannot be the proper subject of the Order granting the motion for execution pending appeal
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF issued by the SAC.
LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION, WHICH WAS A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any
ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE, CAN STILL BE THE SUBJECT OF EXECUTION. 23 purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent. Such judgment or order may be
resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it is involved. It is not even necessary to take
Petitioner argues that when the CA set aside the valuation of the SAC, it necessarily any steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored. 27
means that such valuation can no longer be the subject of an execution pending appeal. It In Metropolitan Waterworks & Sewerage System v. Sison,28 this Court held that:
adds that the writ of execution ordering the LBP to pay respondents the amount of  
P1,479,023.00 remains unimplemented as of the time the CA rendered the decision x x x “[A] void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment, but
annulling the aforesaid valuation. may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is
Petitioner posits that once a decision is annulled or set aside, it is rendered without sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication.
legal effect for being a void judgment. Petitioner maintains that while the issue of the It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect,
validity of the writ of execution issued by the SAC had been upheld by this Court in G.R. impair or create rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to
No. 157206, the enforcement of the writ had been rendered moot and academic after the those who seek to enforce. All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves
decision of the SAC was reversed and set aside by the CA. regarded as invalid. In other words, a void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the
On their part, respondents contend that having attained finality, the decision of this situation is the same as it would be if there were no judgments. It, accordingly, leaves the
Court in G.R. No. 157206 could no longer be disturbed. Moreover, the reason advanced by parties litigants in the same position they were in before the trial.”29
the CA in denying the motion for partial reconsideration was merely an affirmation of the
decision of this Court in the said case. Accordingly, a void judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right
The petition is without merit. nor of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it
At the onset, it should be noted that although this Court, in Land Bank of the have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final, and any writ of execution based on
Philippines v. Orilla,24 held that the SAC validly issued the Order granting execution it is void: “x x x it may be said to be a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and
pending appeal in slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.”30
_______________ As correctly maintained by petitioner, since the valuation made by the SAC in its
the exercise of its sound discretion in issuing the same according to the Rules, still what Decision dated November 20, 2000 having been annulled by the CA for its lack of
this Court deemed was justified in that particular case was the propriety of the issuance of sufficient and legal basis, the void judgment can never be validly executed.
the said Order and not the amount of monetary award that respondents were entitled to Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that the situation contemplated by the CA in the
which, in turn, corresponds to the valuation of the subject property as determined by the assailed Decision was one wherein payment has already been made by petitioner to the
SAC in its Decision. Thus, this Court stated in the said case that “[w]hile this decision does respondents during the pendency of the appeal. Nowhere in the disquisition of the CA can
not finally resolve the propriety of the determination of just compensation by the SAC in it be inferred that it is enjoining the LBP to enforce the writ of execution in accordance
view of the separate appeal on the matter, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part with the valuation made by the SAC. On the contrary, the CA respected the finality of the
of the SAC Judge in allowing execution pending appeal.” 25 motion for execution pending appeal should the same have already been enforced. As
Anent the present controversy, in its Decision annulling the SAC valuation, the CA pronounced by the CA:
opined: x x x Therefore, should the SAC find upon computation that the just compensation
x x x In granting the award, the SAC merely granted the amount prayed for by the spouses previously rendered is bigger than the recomputed value, the petitioners-appellees are
and did not provide any computation or explanation on how it arrived at the amount. There ordered to return the excess considering that payment may already have been given by LBP
was therefore no valid and sufficient legal basis for the award.26 in pursuant to the finality of the motion for execution pending appeal.31
The CA, therefore, concluded that there was no sufficient legal basis for the valuation Verily, it appears that the writ of execution pending appeal remains unimplemented as
arrived at by the SAC in the amount of P1,479,023.00. In fine, the CA effectively set aside of the time the CA rendered its decision annulling the valuation made by the SAC. The
3|Page
monetary award having emanated from a void valuation, it follows that the writ of Orilla, without prejudice to the recomputation of the just compensation for the subject land
execution pending appeal cannot be properly implemented. As contemplated by the CA, by the Regional Trial Court.
the situation would have been different if the writ was already enforced during the SO ORDERED.
pendency of the appeal, for at that time the writ could still be validly enforced since the Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Abad, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.
valuation made by the SAC still stands. Necessarily, as directed by the CA, any excess
amount paid to respondents should be returned to petitioner. Judgment and resolution affirmed.
Nonetheless, the amount of P371,154.99 representing the compensation offered by the Notes.―A void judgment may be assailed or impugned at any time either directly or
petitioner for the land taken, can still be properly awarded to respondents in accordance collaterally, by means of a petition filed in the same case or by means of a separate action,
with Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals.32 In the said case, the Court allowed or by resisting such judgment in any action or proceeding wherein it is invoked. (Republic
the release of the offered compensa- vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 18, Roxas City, Capiz, 589 SCRA 552 [2009])
_______________ The Special Agrarian Courts (SAC) has been statutorily determined to have original
tion to the landowner pending the determination of the final valuation of their properties. and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation due
The Court opined that: to landowners under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). (Land Bank
We are not persuaded. As an exercise of police power, the expropriation of private of the Philippines vs. Montalvan, 675 SCRA 380 [2012])
property under the CARP puts the landowner, and not the government, in a situation where ――o0o―― 
the odds are already stacked against his favor. He has no recourse but to allow it. His only
consolation is that he can negotiate for the amount of compensation to be paid for the © Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
expropriated property. As expected, the landowner will exercise this right to the hilt, but
subject however to the limitation that he can only be entitled to a “just compensation.”
Clearly therefore, by rejecting and disputing the valuation of the DAR, the landowner is
merely exercising his right to seek just compensation. If we are to affirm the withholding of
the release of the offered compensation despite depriving the landowner of the possession
and use of his property, we are in effect penalizing the latter for simply exercising a right
afforded to him by law.33
Of course, this is without prejudice to the outcome of the case which was remanded to
the SAC for recomputation of just compensation. Should the SAC find the said valuation
too low and determine a higher valuation for the subject property, petitioner should pay
respondents the difference. Conversely, should the SAC determine that the valuation was
too high, respondents should return the excess. To be sure, the concept of just
compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the
owners of the land, but also payment within a reasonable time from its taking. Without
prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered “just” inasmuch as the property
owner is made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while
being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to
cope with his loss.34
_______________
WHEREFORE, subject to the foregoing disquisitions, the Decision and Resolution of
the Court of Appeals, dated April 17, 2009 and September 30, 2010, respectively, in CA-
G.R. CV No. 70071, are AFFIRMED. Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines is
ORDERED to release the amount of P371,154.99 to respondents spouses Placido and Clara

4|Page