G.R. No. 118712.

July 5, 1996
L A N D B A N K OF THE P H I L I P P I N E S , PETITIONER, VS C O U RT OF AP P E AL S , P E D R O L.
Y A P , H E I RS OF E M I L I A N O F. S A NT I AG O , A G RI C UL T U R AL M A N A G E M E N T &
D E V E L O P M E NT CO R P O R A T I O N , RESPONDENTS
FACTS: In this agrarian dispute, it is once more imperative that the aforestated principles be
applied in its resolution. Separate petitions for review were filed by petitioners Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) and Land Bank of the following the adverse ruling by the Court of
Appeals. 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. Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DAR and the Landbank with respect to the
valuation and payment of compensation for their land, they 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. DAR and Land Bank filed for petitions
but it was dismissed and they filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUES: Whether or not the opening of "trust accounts" is within the coverage of term
"deposit.
HELD: Yes, The provision is very clear and unambiguous, foreclosing any doubt as to allow an
expanded construction that would include the opening of "trust accounts" within the coverage
of term "deposit. Accordingly, we must adhere to the well settled rule that when the law
speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no reason for interpretation or construction,
but only for application. The validity of constituting trust accounts for the benefit of the
rejecting landowners and withholding immediate payment to them is further premised on the
latter's refusal to accept the offered compensation thereby making it necessary that the
amount remains in the custody of the LBP for safekeeping and in trust for eventual payment to
the landowners. As an exercise of police power, the expropriation of private property under the
CARP puts the landowner, and not the government, in a situation where 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 expropriated property. Unduly
burdening the property owners from the resulting flaws in the implementation of the CARP
which was supposed to have been a carefully crafted legislation is plainly unfair and
unacceptable.