9/14/2020 LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF SPS. JAIME R.

BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 221571, July 29, 2019 ]

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES PETITIONER, VS. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA

AND HEIRS OF SPOUSES JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA,
NAMELY: VINCENT BALDOZA, JUAN BALDOZA, CATHERINE BALDOZA, JOAN
BALDOZA* AND GIRLIE BALDOZA,** RESPONDENTS.

DECISION
REYES, J. JR., J.:
Assailed before this Court, through a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1], are the
Decision[2] dated February 18, 2015 and Resolution[3] dated October 29, 2015, of
the Court of Appeals-Cebu City (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 06200, which reversed
and set aside the ruling of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 32,
sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (RTC-SAC).

The Relevant Antecedents

Orlando Baldoza (Baldoza) is the owner of one-half undivided portions of Lot No. 42,
GSS-620[4] and Lot No. 49, GSS-620[5], situated in Cabcaban, Manjuyod, Negros
Oriental. The undivided one-half portions of Lot Nos. 42 and 49 are owned in
common by the heirs of Spouses Jaime Baldoza and Violeta Baldoza (Heirs of
Baldoza).[6] Baldoza and the Heirs of Baldoza are hereafter collectively referred to as
respondents.

On September 2, 2005, respondents offered that their lots be placed under the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Such offer was
duly accepted by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Pursuant to the
voluntary offer for sale (VOS) by respondents, DAR acquired the aforementioned lots.
[7]

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c10021 [8] 1/11

9/14/2020 LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF SPS. JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA

Per Claims Valuation and Processing Form[8] dated October 9, 2008, the Land Bank
of the Philippines (petitioner) fixed the initial valuation of Lot No. 42 with an area of
20.8788 hectares in the amount of P2,832,691.23 while Lot No. 49 with an area of
22.6958 hectares was valuated at P2,018,008.99. The total amount of said lots
amounted to P4,850,700.22.[9]

On the bases of the valuations made by the petitioner, DAR offered to buy the subject
lots. However, respondents refused to accept the offer as they maintained that the
initial valuation was way below the fair, reasonable, and just compensation of the lots.
Thus, respondents elevated the determination of just compensation of the subject lots
before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) of the Province of Negros Oriental.[10]

Ruling against the respondents, the DARAB affirmed the valuation of the petitioner in
an Order[11] dated February 27, 2009. Respondents sought the reversal of the
valuation by filing a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied in an
Order[12] dated July 3, 2009.

Aggrieved, respondents filed a petition for determination of just compensation before

the RTC-SAC.[13]

The RTC-SAC sought the aid of the Commissioners, after agreement of the parties, in
ascertaining all factors in properly valuating the subject lots. Subsequently, the
Commissioners considered the valuation factors taking into account Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 6657, as amended, and the Philippine Valuation Standards with the aim of
approximating as close as possible the definition of highest and best use of the
property which is physically possible, appropriately justified, legally permissible,
financially feasible, and which results in the highest value of the property being
valued. In this regard, the Commissioners took the average of the subject lots' selling
price for sugar and molasses in the course of three years (from 2008 to 2011). Hence,
the valuation amounted to P6,852,695.86. Moreover, an interest of 12% was imposed.
[14]

Based on the findings and recommendation of the appointed Commissioners, the

RTC-SAC, in a Decision[15] dated June 29, 2011 resolved in this wise:

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c10021 2/11
9/14/2020 LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF SPS. JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds for the Petitioners, and
hereby DIRECTS the Respondent Land Bank to pay the following: (1) the
remaining balance of the just compensation to the Petitioners in the amount of
Two Million One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Five and 64/100 Pesos
([PhP]2,001,995.64) with legal interest of 12% per annum, reckoned from August
18, 2009 up to the time when the whole amount is actually paid; and (2) its share
in the Commissioners' fees in the amount of [PhP]30,000.00. Finally, Petitioners
are likewise directed to pay its share in the Commissioners' fees in the same
amount.

SO ORDERED.[16]

The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied in an Order[17] dated
July 22, 2011.

In a petition for review filed before the CA, petitioner impugned the RTC-SAC's ruling
on the valuation of the property, the imposition of legal interest, and payment of
commissioners' fees.[18]

Resolving the issues in favor of the petitioner, the CA granted the petition and
affirmed the previous order of the DARAB in a Decision[19] dated February 18, 2015.
The CA likewise deleted the imposition of interest but retained the liability of the
respondent to pay commissioners' fees.

The CA took note of the difference in valuation in the Capitalized Net Income (CNI) of
the subject lots. To properly valuate said lots, the CA instead, used the average of the
latest available 12-month selling price, which is in accordance with Administrative
Order (A.O.) No. 5 of the DAR. Moreover, the CA deleted the 12% interest on the
amount of just compensation in the absence of delay on the part of petitioner. Finally,
as to the payment of commissioners' fees, the CA remanded the case to the RTC-SAC
as the records are devoid of proof as to the actual number of days that the
Commissioners spent in relation to the case. The fallo thereof provides:

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c10021 3/11
9/14/2020 LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF SPS. JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of

the RTC-SAC dated June 29, 2011 in Civil Case No. 2010-14518 is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. A new one is entered as follows:

1. AFFIRM the Order of the DARAB dated February 27, 2009 in DARAB CASE
NO. VII-LV407-NO-09 and DARAB CASE NO. VII-LV- 408-NO-09;

2. DELETE the imposed twelve percent (12%) interest on just compensation

determined;

3. REMAND the instant case to the Regional Trial Court for the determination
of the Commissioners' fees in compliance with prescribed rules.

SO ORDERED.[20]

In a Resolution[21] dated October 29, 2015, the CA denied the separate Motions for
Reconsideration, respectively, filed by the parties.

Seeking to find relief from this Court, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on
Certiorari, contending its liability to pay commissioners' fees.

The Issue

The sole issue in this case is whether or not petitioner, an entity performing a
governmental function, is liable to pay commissioners' fees in an agrarian
expropriation proceeding.

The Court's Ruling

Generally, "fees" is defined as charge fixed by law or by an institution for certain

privileges or services. Among those fees exacted for the rendition of services by the
court in connection with an action instituted before it is commissioners' fees.[22]

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c10021 4/11
9/14/2020 LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF SPS. JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA

Section 16, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court (Rules) deemed commissioners' fees as
compensation to be received by the appointed commissioners in eminent domain
proceedings for the time actually and necessarily employed in the performance of
their duties and in making their report to the court.

In eminent domain proceedings under the Rules, the appointment of commissioners

is mandatory.[23] However, in agrarian expropriation proceedings under R.A. No.
6657 as in this case, the appointment of commissioners is discretionary on the part of
the court or upon the instance of any of the parties.[24]

In both cases, these fees are considered as part of the costs of the proceedings.[25]

Unlike in the Rules, R.A. No. 6657 does not categorically identify the party responsible
for the payment of commissioners' fees. However, this gap was supplied by Section
57[26] of R.A. No. 6657 which states that the Rules shall apply suppletorily in
agrarian reform proceedings, including the exercise of the State of its eminent domain
power.

Relevantly, Section 12 of Rule 67 of the Rules categorically identifies that the "plaintiff
is the party responsible for the payment of the commissioners' fees as part of the costs
of the proceedings, to wit:

SEC. 12. Costs, by whom paid. — The fees of the commissioners shall be taxed as
a part of the costs of the proceedings. All costs, except those of rival claimants
litigating their claims, shall be paid by the plaintiff, unless an appeal is taken by
the owner of the property and the judgment is affirmed, in which.event the costs
of the appeal shall be paid by the owner.

Considering that this provision is based on expropriation under the Rules, it is the
Republic of the Philippines (Republic) which is referred to as the "plaintiff for it
undoubtedly initiates complaints for eminent domain. The Republic files such
complaint for the determination of its authority to exercise the power of eminent
domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit.
After the court has determined that the Republic has the right to exercise said power,
the determination of just compensation shall proceed.[27]
lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c10021 5/11
9/14/2020 LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF SPS. JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA

However, in agrarian expropriation cases, the owner of the property may voluntarily
offer to sell his land as sanctioned in DAR A.O. No. 03, series of 1989. Appropriately,
the initial case filed with the RTC-SAC is not for the determination of the propriety of
the exercise of the power of eminent domain, but for the resolution of the proper
valuation of the property if the landowner disagrees with the findings of the DAR,
thus:

Through a notice of voluntary offer to sell (VOS) submitted by the landowner,

accompanied by the required documents, the DAR evaluates the application and
determines the land's suitability for agriculture. The [Land Bank of the
Philippines] likewise reviews the application and the supporting documents and
determines the valuation of the land. Thereafter, the DAR issues the Notice of
Land Valuation to the landowner. In both voluntary and compulsory acquisition,
where the landowner rejects the offer, the DAR opens an account in the name of
the landowner and conducts a summary administrative proceeding. If the
landowner disagrees with the valuation, the matter may be brought to the [RTC]
acting as a [SAC]. This in essence is the procedure for the determination of just
compensation.[28] (Citation omitted)

Clearly, the "plaintiff in this case is not the Republic, but the landowner who refuses
to accept the property's valuation by the DAR.

Be that as it may, the Rules shall govern, considering its suppletory application to all
proceedings before the SAC.

Thus, the respondents in this case shall pay the costs of commissioners' fees as they
are the parties who filed a case for the determination of just compensation after being
discontented with the initial valuation of the DARAB.

Nonetheless, in view of the nature of commissioners' fees as part of the costs of suit,
petitioner is exempt from paying the same as held in the 2013 case of Land Bank of
the Philippines v. Atty. Gonzales,[29] to wit:

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c10021 6/11
9/14/2020 LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF SPS. JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA

x x x the role of LBP in the CARP is more than just the ministerial duty of keeping
and disbursing the Agrarian Reform Funds. As the Court had previously
declared, the LBP is primarily responsible for the valuation and determination of
compensation for all private lands. It has the discretion to approve or reject the
land valuation and just compensation for a private agricultural land placed under
the CARP. In case the LBP disagrees with the valuation of land and
determination of just compensation by a party, the DAR, or even the courts, the
LBP not only has the right, but the duty, to challenge the same, by appeal to the
Court of Appeals or to this Court, if appropriate.

It is clear from the above discussions that since LBP is performing a

governmental function in agrarian reform proceeding, it is exempt
from the payment of costs of suit as provided under Rule 142, Section
1 of the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

This, rule was sustained in the 2014 case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ibarra.
[30]

Once again, this Court clarifies that under Section 1,[31] Rule 142 of the Rules,
petitioner, as an entity performing a governmental function in agrarian reform
proceeding, is exempt from payment of costs of suit, including commissioners' fees as
the same are considered part thereof.

While this Court recognizes that after Atty. Gonzales, there are still cases ordering
petitioner to pay commissioners' fees. However, it bears stressing that these cases did
not delve into the propriety of petitioners' liability to pay for the same. In Apo Fruits
Corporation v. The Hon. Court of Appeals,[32] the issue on commissioners' fees was
actually the correctness of the adjudged amount; and in Yared v. Land Bank of the
Philippines,[33] such issue was never raised at all. Even the case cited by the CA,
which is Land Bank of the Philippines v. Nable,[34] is misplaced because like in Apo
Fruits, the issue was the correctness of the amount of commissioners' fees.

Hence, this Court disagrees with the ruling of the CA in ordering both parties to pay
for the commissioners' fees.

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c10021 7/11
9/14/2020 LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF SPS. JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA

However, as to the amount thereof, this Court affirms the ruling of the CA insofar as
the remand of the case is concerned for the proper computation of said fees.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED.

Accordingly, the Decision dated February 18, 2015 and the Resolution dated October
29, 2015 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 06200 pertaining
to the liability of petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines to pay commissioners' fees
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Respondents Orlando R. Baldoza and Heirs of Spouses Jaime R. Baldoza and Violeta
Baldoza, namely: Vincent Baldoza, Juan Baldoza, Catherine Baldoza, Joan Baldoza
and Girlie Baldoza, are LIABLE to pay commissioners' fees.

The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 32,
sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, for the determination of commissioners' fees
strictly in accordance with Section 12, Rule 67 and Section 16, Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.

* Also spelled as "Jo-an Baldoza" in some parts of the rollo.

** Also referred to as "Girlie Baldoza-Bugtai" in some parts of the rollo.

[1] Rollo, pp. 3-20.

[2] Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, with Associate Justices Marilyn B.
Lagura-Yap and Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurring; id. at 21-40.

[3] Id. at 44-50.

[4]
lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c10021 8/11
9/14/2020 LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF SPS. JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA
[4] A parcel of land containing an area of 20.8788 hectares, more or less and bounded
as follows: North-Lot 41-A; South-Lots 45 and 46; East- Lot 41-B; and West- Lots 03
and 44; Id. at 22.

[5] A parcel of land containing an area of 22.6958 hectares, more or less, situated in
Cabcaban, Manjuyod, Negros Oriental, bounded as follows: North- Lots 95 and 46;
South- Lots 50 and 88-A; East- Lot 51 and a creek; and West- Lot 89-A-5; id.

[6] Id. at 22-23.

[7] Id. at 23.

[8] Id. 151-157.

[9] Id. at 23.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 170-172.

[12] Id. at 173-175.

[13] Id. at 179-184.

[14] Id. at 24 and 25.

[15] Penned by Judge Roderick A. Maxino; id. at 119-134.

[16] Id. at 134.

[17] Id. at 135.

[18] Id. at 27-28.

[19] Supra note 2.

[20] Id. at 39-40.

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c10021 9/11
9/14/2020 LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF SPS. JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA

[21] Supra note 3.

[22] OCA Circular No. 125-2014.

[23] Evergreen Manufacturing Corporation v. Republic, G.R. No. 218628 & 218631,
September 6, 2017, 839 SCRA. 200, 217.

[24] Sec. 58. Appointment of Commissioners. – The Special Agrarian Courts, upon
their own initiative or at the instance of any of the parties, may appoint one or more
commissioners to examine, investigate and ascertain facts relevant to the dispute,
including the valuation of properties, and to file a written report thereof with the
court.

[25] Id.

[26] SEC. 57. Special Jurisdiction. – The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original
and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this
Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian
Courts, unless modified by this Act.
xxxx

[27] National Power Corporation v. Posada, 755 Phil. 613, 624 (2015).

[28] Mateo v. Department of Agrarian Reform, 805 Phil, 707, 722 (2017).

[29] 711 Phil. 98, 119 (2013).

[30] 747 Phil. 691 (2014).

[31] SEC. 1. Cost ordinarily follow results of suit. – Unless otherwise provided in
these rules, cost shall be allowed to the prevailing party as a matter of course, but the
court shall have power, for special reasons, to adjudge that either party shall pay the
costs of an action, or that the same be divided, as may be equitable. No costs shall be
allowed against the Republic of the Philippines unless otherwise provided by law.

[32]
lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c10021 10/11
9/14/2020 LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF SPS. JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA
[32] 565 Phil 418, 445-446 (2007).

[33] G.R. No. 213945, January 24, 2018.

[34] 689 Phil. 524 (2012).

lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c10021 11/11