G.R. No. 221060. August 09, 2023
MARKEN, INCORPORATED (now AQUASALINA INCORPORATED), PETITIONER, VS. LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Marken, Incorporated (now Aquasalina Incorporated) is the owner of two parcels of land in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, covered by TCT Nos. T-13682 and T-13683. On August 12, 1998, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) sent a Notice of Coverage placing the subject properties under the Compulsory Acquisition Scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) determined the valuation of the lands and deposited the compensation amounts (₱11,648,130.73 for TCT No. T-13682 and ₱7,882,623.22 for TCT No. T-13683) in petitioner’s name. Petitioner rejected the valuation, and the matter was referred to the DARAB for summary administrative proceedings to fix just compensation. The DARAB, in a September 5, 2011 Decision, adopted LBP’s valuation, finding that petitioner failed to support its claimed higher valuation with clear and convincing evidence and failed to prove exemption from CARP coverage. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition, holding that petitioner resorted to the wrong mode of appeal; the proper remedy was to file a petition for determination of just compensation with the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) as mandated by law. The CA affirmed the DARAB decision. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via appeal by certiorari, arguing that the CA erred in not correcting DAR’s erroneous inclusion of the properties under CARP and that just compensation should be based on their classification as prawn and fishpond, not agricultural land.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in failing to consider that the petition sought redress for DAR’s erroneous disposition in placing the subject properties under CARP.
2. Whether the CA erred in failing to consider that just compensation should be based on the properties’ classification as prawn and fishpond, not agricultural land.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court held that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy by directly appealing the DARAB decision to the CA under Rule 43. The correct remedy, as provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) and Section 6, Rule XIX of the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure, is to file a petition for determination of just compensation with the Special Agrarian Court (SAC), which has original and exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. Consequently, the DARAB decision became final and executory. On the substantive issues, the Court found that petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that the properties were exempt from CARP coverage. The claim that the lands were re-zoned as industrial in 1995 was not supported by conclusive evidence of an approved zoning ordinance. The alleged exemptions as fishponds/prawn farms under RA No. 7881 were not proven, as petitioner did not appeal the DAR’s cancellation of a prior deferment order. Regarding just compensation, the Court upheld that the valuation must consider the factors in Section 17 of RA No. 6657 and relevant administrative orders, and the burden of proof lies with the landowner to show that the LBP valuation is incorrect. Petitioner did not discharge this burden. Thus, the CA correctly affirmed the DARAB decision.