1 . 3 . 2 . C a s e 3 . A p o Fr u i t s C o r p . v s L a n d B a n k o f t h e P h i l .

| 1

APO FRUITS CORPORATION and HIJO PLANTATION, INC., Petitioners,

vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

RTC BR. 2 TAGUM CITY

AFC and HPI filed separate complaints for determination of just compensation with
the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). Despite the lapse of more than three years
from the filing of the complaints, the DARAB failed and refused to render a decision
on the valuation of the land. Hence, two complaints for determination and payment
of just compensation were filed by AFC and HPI before Branch 2 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City (acting as a Special Agrarian Court), which were
subsequently consolidated.

Summons was served to defendants DAR and LBP. The trial court appointed as
Commissioners persons it considered competent, qualified and disinterested to
determine the proper valuation of the properties.

DAR and LBP submitted their Answer

The pre-trial order issued by the trial court reads: This Court will determine the
all-embracing concept of Just Compensation, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to
damages, and also whether the value of the land and improvements as determined
by the Land Valuation of Land Bank for the determination of just compensation,
and whether the plaintiff has violated Section 13 of DARAB new rules and
procedure.

The commissioners conducted an ocular inspection

The court-appointed commissioners submitted their appraisal report.

The case was considered submitted for decision.

After hearing, the trial court rendered a decision fixing the just compensation for
the 1,388.6027 hectares of lands and its improvements owned by the plaintiffs AFC
and HPI as follows:

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
FACTS:

Apo Fruits Corporation (AFC) and Hijo Plantation, Inc. (HPI) are the registered
owners of five parcels of agricultural lands located in San Isidro, Tagum, Davao
Province
AFC and HPI voluntarily offered to sell the above parcels of land to the
government. After the initial processing at the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) of the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) application of AFC and HPI, it was
referred to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) for initial valuation. AFC and HPI
received separately from the DARs Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of
Davao province a notice of land acquisition and valuation, informing AFC that the
value of the properties has been placed at P86,900,925.88 or P165,484.47 per
hectare while HPIs properties were valued at P164,478,178.14. Both AFC and HPI
considered the valuations unreasonably low and inadequate as just compensation
for the properties.
AFC rejected the valuation for both TCTs No. T-113366 and No.113359. AFC applied
for the shifting of the mode of acquisition for TCT No. 113359 from VOS to
Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme. HPI also rejected the valuation of
its three parcels of land covered by TCTs No. T-10361, No. T-10362 and No. T10363.
Owing to the rejection by both AFC and HPI of LBPs valuation, the DAR requested
LBP to deposit the amounts equivalent to their valuations in the names and for the
accounts of AFC and HPI. AFC thereafter withdrew the amount of P26,409,549.86,
while HPI withdrew the amount of P45,481,706.76, both in cash from LBP. The DAR
PARO then directed the Register of Deeds of Davao to cancel the TCTs of AFC and
HPI to the said properties and to issue a new one in the name of the Republic of
the Philippines.
After the issuance of the certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines, the Register of Deeds of Davao, upon the request of the DAR, issued
TCTs and Certificates of Land Ownership Award to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.

1.

Ordering P1,383,179,000.00) to be paid jointly and severally to Plaintiffs (AFC

and HPI) by the Defendants (DAR and LBP);

2.

Ordering Defendants to pay Plaintiffs interests on the above-fixed amount from

the date of the taking until fully paid, deducting the amount of the previous
payment which plaintiffs received as/and from the initial valuation;

2 | 1 . 3 . 2 . C a s e 3 . A p o Fr u i t s C o r p . v s L a n d B a n k o f t h e P h i l .
3.

Ordering Defendants to pay jointly and severally the Commissioners fees

herein taxed as part of the costs pursuant to Section 12, Rule 67 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, equivalent to, and computed at Two and One-Half (2
) percent of the determined and fixed amount;

4.

Ordering Defendants to pay jointly and severally the attorneys fees to

plaintiffs equivalent to, and computed at ten (10%) Percent of the determined
and fixed amount plus interest from date of taking until the full amount is fully
paid;

5.

Ordering Defendants to deduct from the total amount fixed the initial payment
paid to the plaintiffs;

6.

Ordering Defendants to pay the costs of the suit; and

7.

Ordering Defendants to pay all the aforementioned amounts thru The Clerk of
Court of this Court.

Except for the above-stated modifications, the consolidated decision stands and
shall remain in full force and effect in all other respects thereof.

From this Order, LBP filed a Notice of Appeal which was granted.

Subsequently, the trial court, citing this Courts ruling in the case of "Land Bank of
the Philippines v. De Leon," that a petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the
proper mode of appeal from a decision on the determination of just compensation
rendered by a special agrarian court, issued an Order recalling its Order and
directed LBP to file a Petition for Review within the reglementary period. LBP filed a
Motion for Reconsideration claiming that the case of Land Bank of the
Philippines v. De Leon was not yet final at that time; hence, it is not certain
whether the decision in that case would have a retroactive effect and that appeal
is the appropriate remedy. This was denied by the trial court in its Order.

COURT OF APPEALS

LBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration mainly on the ground that the trial court
based its valuation on the value of residential and industrial lands in the area
forgetting that the lands involved are agricultural. LBP also sought a
reconsideration of the award of attorneys fees, the interest on the compensation
over the lands and the order of the trial court regarding the payment of
commissioners fees.

LBP filed a Petition for Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP NO. 76222) before the Court of
Appeals assailing the orders of the trial court.

The Court of Appeals found the petition of LBP meritorious. In a decision, the
Court of Appeals granted the petition and the assailed orders were NULLIFIED
and, accordingly, SET ASIDE.

AFC and HPI filed a joint Motion for Reconsideration which the Court of Appeals
denied in its Resolution.

Earlier, DAR filed its own separate petition before the Court of Appeals by way of a
Petition for Review (CA-G.R. SP NO. 74879). In a Resolution , the Court of
Appeals dismissed the petition for failure to state the material dates under Rule
42, Section 2, of the Rules of Court.

In an Order, the trial court modified its decision as follows:

2.

3.

4.

Ordering Defendants to pay plaintiffs, interest at the rate of Twelve (12%)

Percent per annum on the above-fixed amount of fair, reasonable and just
compensation computed from the time the complaint was filed until the finality
of this decision. After this decision becomes final and executory, the rate of
TWELVE (12%) PERCENT per annum shall be additionally imposed on the total
obligation until payment thereof is satisfied, deducting the amounts of the
previous payments by Defendant-LBP received as initial valuation;
Ordering Defendants to pay jointly and severally the Commissioners fees
herein taxed as part of the costs pursuant to Section 12, Rule 67 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, equivalent to, and computed at Two and One-Half (2
) percent of the determined and fixed amount;
Ordering Defendants to pay jointly and severally the attorneys fees to
plaintiffs equivalent to, and computed at ten (10%) Percent of the determined
and fixed amount.

a.

The appellate court held: The importance of stating the material dates cannot
be overemphasized. It is only through a statement thereof in the petition can
it be determined whether or not the petition was filed on time. For its failure
to state the material dates, the petition can and should be outrightly
dismissed.
xxxx

1 . 3 . 2 . C a s e 3 . A p o Fr u i t s C o r p . v s L a n d B a n k o f t h e P h i l . | 3
b.

The petition is also defective in that it failed to attach material portions of the
record as would support the allegations in the petition. More specifically,
copies of the alleged motion for reconsideration filed by the DAR, the order
denying it, and the notice of appeal were not attached to the petition.

SO ORDERED.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

The Decision became final and executory and entry of judgment was issued by the
appellate court.
1. NO.

SUPREME COURT

On the other hand, from the decision of the Court of Appeals in the Petition filed by
LBP, AFC and HPI filed the Petition for Review on Certiorari

ISSUES:
1.

Whether or not the filing by LBP of the Petition for Certiorari is already barred by
res judicata

2.

Whether or not the ruling of the SC in the Arlene De Leon Case, giving only
prospective effect to its earlier resolution as to the proper mode of appeal from
decisions of Special Agrarian Courts, is applicable in the instant case

a.

The following are the elements of res judicata:

The former judgment must be final;

b.
The court which rendered judgment must have jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter;
c.It must be a judgment on the merits; and
d.
There must be between the first and second actions identity of parties,
subject matter, and cause of action.

In this case, the third element of res judicata, i.e., that the former judgment
must be on the merits, is not present. It must be remembered that the
dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 74879 was based on technicality, that is, for failure on
the part of the DAR to state material dates required by the rules. Having been
dismissed based on a technicality and not on the merits, the principle of
res judicata does not apply. Res judicata applies only where judgment on
the merits is finally rendered on the first.

2.

NO.

In the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon, decided on 10 September

2002,

RULING:

AFC and HPI pray that the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 76222 be reversed and set aside and that the Decision of the RTC in
Agrarian Cases be declared as final and executory.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.

While the Decision, dated 12 February 2004, and Resolution, dated 21 June 2004,
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76222, giving due course to LBPs appeal,
are hereby AFFIRMED, this Court, nonetheless, RESOLVES, in consideration of
public interest, the speedy administration of justice, and the peculiar
circumstances of the case, to give DUE COURSE to the present Petition and decide
the same on its merits. Thus, the Decision, dated 25 September 2001, as modified
by the Decision, dated 5 December 2001, of the Regional Trial Court of Tagum City,
Branch 2, in Agrarian Cases No. 54-2000 and No. 55-2000 is AFFIRMED. No costs.

respondents are the registered owners of a parcel of land. They voluntarily

offered the subject property for sale to the government. Unable to agree on the
valuation offered by the DAR, respondents filed a petition with the RTC to fix
the just compensation. In due time, the RTC rendered judgment fixing the
compensation of the property.

4 | 1 . 3 . 2 . C a s e 3 . A p o Fr u i t s C o r p . v s L a n d B a n k o f t h e P h i l .
o

Before the Court of Appeals, the DAR and LBP filed separate petitions. The
DAR filed a Petition for Review of the decision of the RTC. LBP raised the case
on appeal to the Court of Appeals by way of ordinary appeal.

The petition of the DAR was given due course. On the other hand, the Court of
Appeals dismissed LBPs ordinary appeal on the ground that the same was
erroneous.

LBP filed a petition for review before this Court. In Land Bank, we explained: A
petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the proper procedure in
effecting an appeal from decisions of the Regional Trial Courts acting
as Special Agrarian Courts in cases involving the determination of just
compensation to the landowners concerned. Section 60 of RA 6657
clearly and categorically states that the said mode of appeal should be
adopted. There is no room for a contrary interpretation. Where the law
is clear and categorical, there is no room for construction, but only
application.

LBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In a Resolution of this Court dated 20

March 2003, this Court emphasized the prospective application of the

Decision dated 10 September 2002, that a petition for review is the

correct mode of appeal from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts shall
apply only to cases appealed after the finality of this Resolution.
o

Essentially therefore, the rule is that a decision of the RTC acting as a

Special Agrarian Court should be brought to the Court of Appeals via
a Petition for Review. The Court of Appeals will no longer entertain ordinary
appeals thereon. However, this rule applies only after the finality of the
Resolution of this Court in Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon
dated 20 March 2003.

In this case, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled when it gave due course to the
appeal of LBP. LBPs Notice of Appeal was filed on 27 December 2001. This was
given due course by the RTC in an Order dated 15 May 2002. LBPs appeal was,
thus, perfected before this Courts Resolution in the aforementioned Land Bank of
the Philippines v. De Leon case. Hence, the Court of Appeals could give due
course to LBPs petition.