G.R. No. 167399 ; June 22, 2006
ERNESTINA L. CRISOLOGO-JOSE, Petitioner, vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ernestina L. Crisologo-Jose is the owner of several parcels of agricultural land in Talavera, Nueva Ecija, with a total area of 61.7860 hectares. She filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the determination of just compensation, alleging that respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) had given her landholdings a valuation of only P9,000.00 per hectare. She prayed for compensation of at least P100,000.00 per hectare. The RTC ruled in her favor, fixing the compensation at P100,000.00 per hectare and ordering LBP to pay the total sum.
LBP appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC’s decision and dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The CA found that with respect to a 27.09-hectare portion covered by twelve separate titles, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) had not forwarded the claim folders to LBP for processing. For the remaining 34.6960 hectares, which was part of a larger property previously acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27, the CA noted this portion was left out from coverage as it consisted of non-agricultural areas like a school site and a creek. The CA concluded there was no showing the government had actually taken these specific properties for agrarian reform.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to an award of just compensation for her landholdings.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. On the procedural issue, the Court found no error in the trial court’s admission of LBP’s answer filed beyond the reglementary period, as the acceptance of a late answer is discretionary and no prejudice to the petitioner was shown. Moreover, a court cannot motu proprio declare a party in default; the claiming party must file a motion, which petitioner did not do.
Substantively, the Court emphasized that just compensation is a concept inherent in the exercise of eminent domain. It is paid for private property actually taken by the State for public use. In agrarian reform, just compensation is due only when agricultural lands are compulsorily acquired for distribution to farmer-beneficiaries. The Court upheld the CA’s factual finding that the specific parcels of land subject of the petitioner’s claim had not been acquired by the government under the agrarian reform program. For the 27.09-hectare property, there was no evidence of compulsory acquisition, as the claim folders had not even been forwarded to LBP. For the 34.6960-hectare portion, it was excluded from coverage as it was non-agricultural. Since there was no showing of a taking by the State, the fundamental prerequisite for claiming just compensation was absent. Consequently, the petition was correctly dismissed for lack of merit.