Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81193:194168&catid=1567&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:28:03+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 194168, February 13, 2013 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES PLACIDO AND CLARA DY ORILLA, Respondents.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES PLACIDO AND CLARA DY ORILLA, Respondents.
Not content with the decision, respondents filed an action for the determination of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC). The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 6085 and was raffled to Branch 3.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered fixing the just compensation of the land of petitioner subject matter of the instant action at P7.00 per square meter, as only prayed for, which shall earn legal interest from the filing of the complaint until the same shall have been fully paid. Furthermore, respondents are hereby ordered to jointly and solidarily indemnify the petitioners their expenses for attorney’s fee and contract fee in the conduct of the appraisal of the land by a duly licensed real estate appraiser Angelo G. Fajardo of which petitioner shall submit a bill of costs therefor for the approval of the Court.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but was denied with finality by the Court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court sitting as Special Agrarian Court is hereby SET ASIDE.
This case is REMANDED to the trial court for the proper determination of just compensation for the land taken.
The CA held that there was no valid and sufficient legal basis for the SAC in fixing the just compensation for the subject property at P1,479,023.00. Thus, the CA remanded the case to the SAC for the proper determination of just compensation.
Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration.20 Petitioner argued that when the CA set aside the valuation of the SAC amounting to P1,479,023.00, it necessarily follows that said amount can no longer be the subject of an execution pending appeal. Petitioner theorized that by annulling the SAC decision and, consequently, remanding the case to the trial court, the latter’s decision was voided and, therefore, it could no longer be executed.
Petitioner argues that when the CA set aside the valuation of the SAC, it necessarily means that such valuation can no longer be the subject of an execution pending appeal. It adds that the writ of execution ordering the LBP to pay respondents the amount of P1,479,023.00 remains unimplemented as of the time the CA rendered the decision annulling the aforesaid valuation.
Petitioner posits that once a decision is annulled or set aside, it is rendered without legal effect for being a void judgment. Petitioner maintains that while the issue of the validity of the writ of execution issued by the SAC had been upheld by this Court in G.R. No. 157206, the enforcement of the writ had been rendered moot and academic after the decision of the SAC was reversed and set aside by the CA.
On their part, respondents contend that having attained finality, the decision of this Court in G.R. No. 157206 could no longer be disturbed. Moreover, the reason advanced by the CA in denying the motion for partial reconsideration was merely an affirmation of the decision of this Court in the said case.
The CA, therefore, concluded that there was no sufficient legal basis for the valuation arrived at by the SAC in the amount of P1,479,023.00. In fine, the CA effectively set aside and voided the Decision of the RTC fixing the amount of just compensation for the subject property. As correctly argued by petitioner, being the fruit of a void judgment such amount cannot be the proper subject of the Order granting the motion for execution pending appeal issued by the SAC.
As correctly maintained by petitioner, since the valuation made by the SAC in its Decision dated November 20, 2000 having been annulled by the CA for its lack of sufficient and legal basis, the void judgment can never be validly executed.
Verily, it appears that the writ of execution pending appeal remains unimplemented as of the time the CA rendered its decision annulling the valuation made by the SAC. The monetary award having emanated from a void valuation, it follows that the writ of execution pending appeal cannot be properly implemented. As contemplated by the CA, the situation would have been different if the writ was already enforced during the pendency of the appeal, for at that time the writ could still be validly enforced since the valuation made by the SAC still stands. Necessarily, as directed by the CA, any excess amount paid to respondents should be returned to petitioner.
WHEREFORE, subject to the foregoing disquisitions, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated April 17, 2009 and September 30, 2010, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 70071, are AFFIRMED. Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines is ORDERED to release the amount of P371,154.99 to respondents spouses Placido and Clara Orilla, without prejudice to the recomputation of the just compensation for the subject land by the Regional Trial Court.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Abad, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., conucur.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; rollo, pp. 32-47.
4Land Bank of the Philippines v. Orilla, G.R. No. 157206, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 102, 107.
7 G.R. No. 118712 and 118745, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 404; 327 Phil. 1047 (1996).
8 G.R. No. 118712 and 118745, October 6, 1995 49 SCRA 149; 319 Phil. 246 (1995).
9Land Bank of the Philippines v. Orilla, supra note 4, at 108.
15Land Bank of the Philippines v. Orilla, supra note 4.
18Id. at 46-47. (Emphasis in the original).
27Guevarra v. Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, G.R. Nos. 138792-804, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 372, 382-383; 494 Phil. 378, 388 (2005).
28 No. L-40309, August 31, 1983, 124 SCRA 394; 209 Phil. 325 (1983).
29Id. at 404, citing 31 Am Jur., 91-92; at 335-336.
30Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111610, February 27, 2002, 378 SCRA 28; 428 Phil. 32, 42 (2002).
33 Id. at 408; 1053.
34Apo Fruits Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164195, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 537, 557-558.

References: v. 
 v. 
In fine
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.