PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, represented by GOV. LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE and HON. BENJAMIN V. PANGA as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 33 at Pili, Camarines Sur ( Petitioners) vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION), ERNESTO SAN JOAQUIN and EFREN SAN JAOQUIN (Respondents)
FACTS:
The Sanggunian Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees.
Pursuant to the said Resolution, the Province of Camarines Sur, through its Governor, Hon. Luis Villafuerte, filed two separate cases for expropriation against Ernest N. San Joaquin and Efren N. San Joaquin. Forwith, the Province of Camarines Sur filed a motion for the issuance of writ of possession. The San Joaquins failed to appear at the hearing of the motion. The latter moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. However, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the Provincial Government to take possession of the property upon the deposit of the amount (P5,714.00)provisionally fixed by the trial court to answer for damages that private respondents may suffer in the event that the expropriation cases do not prosper.
In the petition before the Court of Appeals, the San Joaquins asked: (a) that Resolution No. 129, Series of 1998 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan be declared null and void; (b) that the complaints for expropriation be dismissed; and (c) that the order dated December 6, 1989 (i) denying the motion to dismiss and (ii) allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the property subject of the expropriation and the order dated February 26,1990, denying the motion to admit the amended motion to dismiss, be set aside. They also asked that an order be issued to restrain the trial court from enforcing the writ of possession, and thereafter to issue a writ of injunction.
The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court, allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondents' lands and the order denying the admission of the amended motion to dismiss. It also ordered the trial court to suspend the expropriation proceedings until after the Province of Camarines Sur shall have submitted the requisite approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert the classification of the property of the private respondents from agricultural to non-agricultural land.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units is subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of the Agrarian Reform, as the implementator of the agrarian reform program.
RULING:
The expropriation of the property authorized by the questioned resolution is for a public purpose.
The Court of Appeals did not rule on the validity of the questioned resolution; neither did it dismiss the complaints. However, when the CA ordered the suspension of the proceedings until the Province of Camarines Sur shall have obtained the authority of the DAR to change the classification of the lands sought to be expropriated from agricultural to non-agricultural use, it assumed that the resolution is valid and that the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use.
The Court held that the establishment of a pilot development center would inure to the direct benefit and advantage of the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. Once operational, it would make available to the community invaluable information and technology on agriculture, fishery and the cottage industry. Ultimately, the livelihood of the farmers, fishermen and craftsmen would be enhanced. The housing project also satisfies the public purpose requirement of the Constitution.
This Court also provides that it is true that local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature. It is also true that in delegating the power to expropriate, the legislature may retain certain control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by the local governments.
"Resolution No. 129 Series of 1988, was promulgated pursuant to Section 9 of BP Blg. 337 of the LGC, which provides: A local government unit may, through its head and acting pursuant to a resolution of its sanggunian exercise the right of eminent domain and institute condemnation proceedings for public use or purpose"
Sec. 9 of BP Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local government units must first secure the approval of the Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The closest provision of law that the CA could site to justify the intervention of DAR in expropriation matters is Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law:
"Section 65- Conversion of Lands - After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for, agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, that the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation"
WHEREFORE, the petition beforehand is GRANTED and the questioned decision of the CA is set aside, insofar as it (a) nullifies the trial court's order allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondents' property; (b) orders the trial court to suspend the expropriation proceedings; and (c) requires the Province of Camarines Sur to obtain the approval of the DAR to convert or reclassify private respondents' appropriate from agricultural to non-agricultural use.
The decision of the CA is AFFIRMED insofar as it sets aside the order of the trial court, denying the amended motion to dismiss of the private respondents.
No comments:
Post a Comment