Province of Camarines Sur Vs. CA, 222 SCRA 170 (1993)

Province of Camarines Sur Vs. CA, 222 SCRA 170 (1993)

Nature: appeal for certiorari on the decision on the issue on whether the expropriation of agricultural lands by LGU is subject to prior approval of the DAR.

Facts:

December 1988, Sangguniang Panlalawigan of CamSur authorized 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 resolution, Gov. Villafuerte filed two separate cases for expropriation against Ernesto San Joaquin and Efren San Joaquin. Upon motion for the issuance of writ or possession, San Joaquins failed to appear at the hearing.

San Joaquins later moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. The court denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the province to take possession of the properties.

San Joaquins filed for motion for relief, but denied as well. In their petition, Asked by the CA, Solicitor General stated that there is no need for the approval of the president for the province to expropriate properties. However, the approval of the DAR is needed to convert the property from agricultural to non-agricultural (housing purpose).

CA set aside the decision of the trial court suspending the possession and expropriation of the property until th province has acquired the approval of DAR.

Ruling:

The rules on conversion of agricultural lands found in Section 4 (k) and 5 (1) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 198, cannot be the source of the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to determine the suitability of a parcel of agricultural land for the purpose to which it would be devoted by the expropriating authority. While those rules vest on the Department of Agrarian Reform the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands for residential, commercial or industrial uses, such authority is limited to the applications for reclassification submitted by the land owners or tenant beneficiaries.

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.

Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch of the local government unit that shall determine whether the use of the property sought to be expropriated shall be public, the same being an expression of legislative policy. The courts defer to such legislative determination and will intervene only when a particular undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the public use.