100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 5 out of 16 pages.
7. Landbank vs CA, GR No. 118712, July 5,1996& DAR vs CA, GR No. 118745, July 5, 1996Ratio:When the law speaks in clear and categoricallanguage, there is no reason for interpretation orconstruction, but only for application. Thus,recourse to any rule which allows the opening oftrust accounts as a mode of deposit underSection 16(e) of RA 6657 goes beyond the scopeof the said provision and is thereforeimpermissible.Facts:The case involves how the government pays“justcompensation”inexpropriationproceedings.Petitioners filed their respective motions forreconsideration contending mainly that,contrary to the Court’s conclusion, theopening of trust accounts in favor of therejecting landowners is sufficient compliancewith the mandate of RA 6657.Sec. 16, RA 6657. Procedure for Acquisition ofPrivate Lands –x x x x x x xxx(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of thecorresponding payment or, in case ofrejection or no response from thelandowner, upondeposit withanaccessible bank designated by the DAR of
the compensation in cash or in LBPbondsin accordance with this Act, theDAR shall take immediate possession ofthe land and shall request . . .”Moreover, it is argued that there is nolegal basis for allowing the withdrawal ofthe money deposited in trust for therejectinglandownerspendingthedetermination of the final valuation oftheir properties.Issue:Whether or not the opening of trust accountsis sufficient compliance with the mandate of RA6657.Ruling:No, the opening of trust accounts is notsufficient compliance.The provision is very clear and unambiguous,foreclosing any doubt as to allow an expandedconstruction that would include the opening of“trust accounts” within the coverage of the term“deposit.” Accordingly, we must adhere to thewell-settled rule that when the law speaks inclear and categorical language, there is no reasonfor interpretation or construction, but only forapplication. Thus, recourse to any rule whichallows the opening of trust accounts as a mode ofdeposit under Section 16(e) of RA 6657 goes
beyond the scope of the said provision and istherefore impermissible.Notes:The rule-making power must be confined todetails for regulating the mode or proceedings tocarry into effect the law as it had been enacted,and it cannot be extended to amend or expandthe statutory requirements or to embrace mattersnot covered by the statute. Any resultingdiscrepancy between administrative regulationsand provisions of the law will always be resolvedin favor of the basic law.
8. South Pacific Sugar Corp. vs. CAGR No. 180462, February 9, 2011Facts:1999 – the government projected a shortageof some 500,000 metric tons of sugar due tothe effects of El Nio and La Nia phenomena.