a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer.
Land Bank vs CA, Yap, et al
G.R. No. 118712, Oct. 6, 1995,
249 SCRA 149 (1995)
Private respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the CARL.
Petitioners assail decision of CA which ruled as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus is hereby GRANTED:
a) DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990 is declared null and void insofar as it provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposits in cash or bonds;
b) Landbank is ordered to immediately deposit — not merely "earmark", "reserve" or "deposit in trust" — with an accessible bank designated by DAR in the names of the following [private respondents] the following amounts in cash and in government financial instruments — within the parameters of Sec. 18 (1) of RA 6657:
P 1,455,207.31 Pedro L. Yap
P 135,482.12 Heirs of Emiliano Santiago
P 15,914,127.77 AMADCOR;
c) The DAR-designated bank is ordered to allow the [private respondents] to withdraw the above-deposited amounts without prejudice to the final determination of just compensation by the proper authorities;
Whether or not private respondents are entitled to withdraw the amounts deposited in trust in their behalf pending the final resolution of the cases involving the final valuation of their properties
YES. The attempt to make a distinction between the deposit of compensation under Section 16(e) of RA 6657 and determination of just compensation under Section 18 is unacceptable. To withhold the right of the landowners to appropriate the amounts already deposited in their behalf as compensation for their properties simply because they rejected the DAR's valuation, and notwithstanding that they have already been deprived of the possession and use of such properties, is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain.