Province of Camarines Sur vs CA (G.R. No. 103125)

Province of Camarines Sur vs CA (G.R. No. 103125)

Facts: On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees. Pursuant to the said Resolution, the Province of Camarines Sur, through its Governor, Hon. Luis R. Villafuerte, filed two separate cases for expropriation against Ernesto N. San Joaquin and Efren N. San Joaquin. The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. The Trial court denied their motion to dismiss and authorized the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession the property of the San Joaquins. 

San Joaquins filed a petition to the Court of Appeals to set aside the order of the Trial Court. The Court of Appeals asked the Solicitor General to give his comment to the petition. The Solicitor General stated that under Section 9 of the Local Government Code, there was no need for the approval by the Office of the President of the exercise by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the right of eminent domain. However, the Solicitor General expressed the view that the Province of Camarines Sur must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing project. The Court of Appeals then ruled to suspend the expropriation proceedings until the required approval is secured from DAR. 

Issue: WO.N LGUs need to secure approval from DAR before they can convert lands from agricultural use to non-agricultural use?

Held: No, the Supreme Court did not agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals where an approval from DAR is a requirement in converting expropriated lands from agricultural used to non-agricultural use or public use. The Court explained that to sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc, without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use.

Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 or the Local Government Code which is the source of authority of the petitioner in passing Resolution No. 129 series of 1988 does not require prior approval of the Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian Reform. Their power to expropriate comes from delegation by the congress and that the court views the power of expropriation as superior to the power to distribute lands under the land reform program. The closest provision of law that could be used to justify the requirement of the approval from DAR would be sec. 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which states:

 "SEC. 65. Conversion of Lands. - After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, That the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation."

However, sec. 65 only applies to lands previously placed under the agrarian reform program as it speaks of "the lapse of five (5) years from its award.” which is not the case of herein subject property.

Furthermore, the issuance of Resolution No. 129 is a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain by the Provincial Governor of the Province of Camarines Sur as it was properly delegated by the Legislative Department through section 9 of the Local Government Code which provides:

"A local government unit may, through its head and acting pursuant to a resolution of its sanggunian exercise the right of eminent domain and institute condemnation proceedings for public use or purpose.”

The intervention of the Department of Agrarian Reform in expropriation matters in Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is not applicable.