GR 103125; (May, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 103125 May 17, 1993
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 JOAQUIN, respondents.
FACTS
On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang 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 to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees. Pursuant to this resolution, the Province filed two separate expropriation cases against Ernesto N. San Joaquin and Efren N. San Joaquin. The trial court denied the San Joaquins’ motion to dismiss, authorized the Province to take possession of the property upon deposit of a provisional amount, and issued a writ of possession. The San Joaquins filed a petition before the Court of Appeals seeking to declare the resolution null and void, dismiss the complaints, and set aside the trial court’s orders. The Court of Appeals set aside the order allowing the Province to take possession and ordered the suspension of the expropriation proceedings until the Province submitted the requisite approval from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to convert the classification of the property from agricultural to non-agricultural land. The Province appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units is subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform for conversion of land classification under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It set aside the portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision that nullified the trial court’s order allowing the Province to take possession, ordered the suspension of the expropriation proceedings, and required the Province to obtain DAR approval for land conversion. The Court held that the expropriation was for a public purpose, as the establishment of a pilot development center and a housing project would inure to the direct benefit and advantage of the people of the province. It ruled that there is no provision in the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law ( R.A. No. 6657 ) that expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control of the DAR. Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, which governs conversion of private agricultural lands, was found not to apply to the sovereign or its political subdivisions when exercising eminent domain, as restrictive statutes of general terms do not embrace the sovereign unless specifically mentioned. The power of eminent domain delegated to local government units is complete within its limits, and the legislative determination of public use is accorded deference. The Court affirmed the portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision that set aside the trial court’s order denying the amended motion to dismiss.