A.C. No. 5804 - Hornilla vs. Salunat

The case is an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The appeal challenges the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Tagbilaran City, which sat as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC) in Civil Case No. 6085.
The respondents, Spouses Placido Orilla and Clara Dy Orilla, are the registered owners of Lot No. 1, 11-12706 located in Bohol with an area of 23.3416 hectares.

In late November 1996, the Department of Agrarian Reform Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (DAR-PARO) of Bohol issued a Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition to the respondents.
The notice informed the respondents of the compulsory acquisition of 21.1289 hectares of their property under Republic Act (RA) 6657, offering compensation based on a valuation made by the petitioning Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).
The respondents rejected the DAR’s valuation, thereby triggering further proceedings.

The Provincial DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) conducted a summary hearing to determine the just compensation, eventually affirming the petitioner’s valuation.
Dissatisfied with the valuation, the respondents filed a case before the RTC (sitting as SAC).
After trial on the merits, the SAC rendered its Decision on November 20, 2000, fixing the just compensation at P7.00 per square meter for the 21.1289 hectares and ordering joint and several indemnification of the petitioners’ expenses.

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on December 11, 2000.
Respondents filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal on December 15, 2000, relying on Section 2, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant consolidated cases.
Simultaneously, the DAR filed its own Notice of Appeal on December 18, 2000, contesting the SAC Decision.
On December 21, 2000, the SAC issued an Order granting the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, conditioning execution on the posting of a bond amounting to one-half of the just compensation determined.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration were filed by both parties, all of which were denied.
The Court of Appeals eventually dismissed the petition on July 29, 2002, affirming that execution pending appeal was justified by the exigent circumstances and ensuring prompt payment of just compensation.

Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondents were entitled to execution pending appeal.
It argued that the principle of “prompt payment” under RA 6657 was already satisfied by the deposit of provisional compensation (in cash and bonds) and its immediate release upon fulfillment of legal requirements.
It further asserted that the execution pending appeal was granted without a proper hearing, thereby constituting an abuse of discretion under Section 2(a), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

The petitioner’s valuation of the property was P371,154.99; however, after respondents’ rejection and a summary proceeding, the SAC, taking into account multiple factors such as land location, quality, adjacent infrastructure, and agricultural yield, recalculated the just compensation at P1,479,023.00.
The SAC examined documentary evidence, the expert appraisal by a licensed real estate appraiser, and testimony regarding the land’s characteristics and market factors.
Special emphasis was placed on the respondents’ age and the urgent need for compensation to alleviate the hardship of being deprived of their property.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the grant of execution pending appeal on the SAC decision awarding just compensation.

Whether the petitioner’s contention that the principle of “prompt payment” was satisfied by the immediate deposit and release of provisional compensation is tenable.
Whether the SAC and the Court of Appeals properly exercised judicial discretion under Section 2(a), Rule 39 in granting execution pending appeal without a prior hearing.
Whether the circumstances and evidence presented justify the imposition of execution pending appeal in the context of agrarian reform and compulsory acquisition.