LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. FORTUNE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY THE PDIC AS RECEIVER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
BARRIOS, J.:
Since the valuation of the land by DARAB varied with its own assessment, the appellee Land Bank of the Philippines (or Land Bank) filed an original action for Determination of Just Compensation before the Regional Trial Court stationed in Batangas City. This was raffled to Branch 13 sitting as a Special Agrarian Court. Said court found no error in the valuation of P6,796.00 fixed by Land Bank as the just compensation, hence in its decision dated May 30, 2002 it disposed:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this Court hereby affirms the valuation of P6,796.00 as just compensation for the .4230 – hectare landholding of respondent Fortune Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (p. 138, record)
Fortune Savings assails this in this appeal, assigning that the following errors were committed by the court a quo:
The court a quo erred in taking cognizance of the petition for determination of just compensation considering that the decision of the DARAB has already reached finality prior to the filing of the petition.The court a quo erred in fixing the amount of P6,796.00 as the just compensation for the property of appellant. (p. 13, rollo)
As security for a loan of P71,500.00 she obtained from Fortune Savings, Juliana Manalo mortgaged to it the subject lot including an owner-type jeep. For her failure to pay the loan, foreclosure of mortgage was initiated by Fortune Savings where it was declared as the highest bidder at P80,200.00 in the foreclosure sale.
Now its owner, Fortune Savings offered the property for P100,000.00 to the Department of Agrarian Reform for coverage under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. The Land Bank by authority under Executive Order No. 405, however fixed the valuation of the property at P6,796.00 only. Fortune Savings rejected this, hence a summary administrative proceedings for the determination of just compensation was conducted by the DARAB. On March 3, 1999 said office rendered its decision the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the sum of NINETY THREE SIXTY PESOS and 00/100 (P93,060.00) as the just compensation for the .4230 hectares covered by title No. T-33051, accordingly the following orders are issued:
1] Ordering the Land Bank of the Philippines to pay Fortune Savings and Loan Association to sum of NINETY THREE THOUSAND SIXTY PESOS and 0/100 (P93,060.00) in accordance with the mode of payment under Section 18 of RA. 6657.
2] Ordering the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Batangas to observe paragraph IV (32) of A.O. No. 01, series of 1993.
3] Ordering the Clerk of the Board to forward the Claim folder to the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Batangas (PARO) upon finality of this decision.
4] This decision shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof and no original action is filed with the Special Agrarian Court.
5] Ordering the parties or counsel to inform this Board of the fact of filing of an original action with the Special Agrarian Court immediately upon filing. (p. 3, record)
On April 7, 2000, Land Bank filed an Original Petition for determination of just compensation before the court a quo. Summons was served on Fortune Savings through its Records Officer (p. 36, record). No responsive pleading having been submitted, Land Bank filed a motion to declare Fortune Savings in default which was set for hearing on February 7, 2001 but where the counsel of Fortune Savings failed to appear. The court a quo deferred ruling on the said motion and required Fortune Savings to submit appropriate pleadings. Thereafter, it filed a Comment (pp. 66-72, record). In its Order dated February 27, 2001 the court a quo declared:
This treats of petitioner’s Motion to Declare Respondent in Default.
Instead of filing an Opposition, respondent filed a pleading which, although captioned as “Comment”, appears to be an “Answer”.
Considering that respondent has not disputed the Motion and has not advanced any justification why it failed to answer within the period fixed by law, the Motion is hereby granted.
WHEREFORE, respondent is declared in default and petitioner is hereby allowed to present evidence ex parte x x x (p. 78, record)
On May 30, 2002 the court a quo affirmed the P6,796.00 valuation of the Land Bank on the property. Expectedly Fortune Savings filed a Motion for Reconsideration (pp. 147-153, record) but this was denied in an Order dated August 13, 2002 (p. 157, record). Hence this appeal.
Fortune Savings argues that the decision of the DARAB on March 3, 1999 became final and executory on April 1, 1999. A copy of the decision of the DARAB bears the stamp “RECEIVED” by Land Bank on March 17, 1999. Counting the days therefrom up to April 5, 1999 when Land Bank filed its petition, a total of nineteen (19) days have already lapsed. Hence by then the DARAB decision had become final and executory. Fortune Savings adds that the amount offered by the Land Bank is unreasonable and amounts to a confiscation of its property without due process. Rather the amount of P93,060.00 fixed by DARAB as the fair market value of the property, should be the just compensation as this approximates the loss that will be suffered by it.
The Land Bank opposes this and defends that the contention that the decision of DARAB was already final and executory when it filed its petition before the court a quo, is not tenable. Such point is deemed to have been waived for the failure of Fortune Savings to participate in the proceedings before the court a quo. By its failure to file an Answer to Land Bank’s petition, this point could no longer be raised on appeal. Land Bank avers too that despite the opportunity and legal remedy available to Fortune Savings when it was declared in default, it did not bother to file for relief from the said order.
In justifying the amount of P6,796.00 as the just compensation of the property, Land Bank defended that this was arrived at by properly following the formula provided by law. It added that its determination must be given weight because it has the expertise on this line for being given the primary responsibility to determine the land valuation and compensation for all lands covered by R.A. 6657.
We find the appeal meritorious.
Rule XIII, ?11 of the Rules of Procedure of the DARAB provides:
Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just Compensation. – The decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary determination and payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as a Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration. (emphasis supplied)
Concomitantly it was specifically stated in the decision of the DARAB that:
4] This decision shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof and no original action is filed with the Special Agrarian Court.
It is undisputed that Land Bank filed the petition with the court a quo beyond 15-days after it received the decision of the DARAB. Clearly, said decision has become final and executory and the court a quo no longer had jurisdiction to entertain the case. It is axiomatic that decisions which have long become final and executory cannot be annulled by courts and the appellate court is deprived of jurisdiction to alter the trial court’s final judgment (Cayana vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 125607, March 18, 2004). The defense of Land Bank that Fortune Savings is deemed to have waived its right to raise this as a defense, cannot stand. Note that in the “Comment” (pp. 66-72, record) filed by Fortune Savings before the court a quo, it specifically set forth among its Special and Affirmative Defenses that:
6. The March 3, 1999 Decision of the DARAB, Region IV, OPA, Batangas in DCN IV-Ba-1133-94, entitled “In the Matter of Land Valuation in Agricultural Land under Voluntary Offer to Sell Owned by Fortune Savings and Loan Association, Inc. with Title No. T-33051 located at San Gregorio Malvar, Batangas”, has become final and executory for failure by the petitioner to file the instant action within fifteen (15) day reglementary period under Section of 2 (sic) of Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1993.
Therefore by no extrapolation can it be said that Fortune Savings has waived this defense. In the first place, though not raised below, the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be considered by the reviewing court, as it may be raised at any stage (del Rosario vs Bonga, 350 SCRA 101). After all lack of jurisdiction as a defense cannot be waived, and may be acted upon by the court motu proprio.
At this point, it is no longer necessary to discuss the second assigned error.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED and the appealed decision is SET ASIDE. The decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Office of the Provincial Adjudicator dated March 3, 1999, is accordingly REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Guariña, III and Tagle, JJ., concur.