LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. ELI G. C.
NATIVIDAD by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by
and JOSE R. CAGUIAT
G.R. No. 127198. May 16, 2005
FACTS:
Private respondents filed a petition before the trial court for the
determination of just compensation for their agricultural lands in Arayat,
Pampanga, which were acquired by the government pursuant to PD 27. The
RTC ordered Land Bank and DAR to pay respondents' land for P30 per
square meters as just compensation. Land Bank argues that the property
was acquired on 21 October 1972, the effectivity date of PD 27, therefore
just compensation should be based on the value of the property as of that
time and on the rules provided by PD 27 NOT at the time of possession in
1993.
ISSUE:
Whether or not land valuation should be based on the formula provided in
PD 27.
Ruling: No. Although the property was acquired on October 1972, the
seizure of the landholding DID NOT take place upon the date of effectivity of
PD 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation (OP v.
CA). The agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation
to be paid the landowners has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of
RA 6657 before the completion of this process the computation of just
compensation should be based upon the said Act and the process finalized
based on it. It would be inequitable to determine just compensation based
on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR’s failure
to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. Just
compensation should be the full and fair equivalent (real, substantial, full,
and ample) of the property TAKEN from its owner by the expropriator. Land
valuation should be based on Section 17 of RA 6657, the prevailing
agricultural reform law:
Section 17. Determination of Just Compensation. — In determining
just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of
the like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation
government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic
benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the
Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans
secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall
be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.
Therefore, the petition was denied. The trial court is correct in having taken
into account the land’s nature as irrigated land, location along the highway,
market value, assessor’s value, and the volume and value of its produce,
based on RA 6657.
G.R. No. 170220 November 20, 2006
JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, in her capacity as Assignee of FEDERICO C. SUNTAY,
NENITA SUNTAY TAÑEDO and EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III, Petitioners, vs. LAND
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee of Federico C. Suntay over
certain parcels of agricultural land located at Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental
Mindoro, with an area of 3,682.0285 hectares covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT). In 1972, a portion of the said property with an area
of 311.7682 hectares, was placed under the land reform program pursuant
to Presidential Decree No. 27 (1972) and Executive Order No. 228 (1987).
The land was thereafter subdivided and distributed to farmer beneficiaries.
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the LBP fixed the value of
the land at P5,056,833.54 which amount was deposited in cash and bonds in
favor of Lubrica.
Nenita Suntay-Tañedo and Emilio A.M. Suntay III inherited from Federico
Suntay a parcel of agricultural land consisting of two lots, namely, Lot 1 with
an area of 45.0760 hectares and Lot 2 containing an area of 165.1571
hectares or a total of 210.2331 hectares. Lot 2 was placed under the
coverage of P.D. No. 27 but only 128.7161 hectares was considered by LBP
and valued the same at P1,512,575.05.
Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties, hence the Office of the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted summary
administrative proceedings for determination of just compensation then
fixed the preliminary just compensation at P51.8 M for the 311.77 hectares
of land and P21.608 M for the 128.72 hectares of land.
LBP filed petitions for the judicial determination of just compensation with
the RTC. The landowners then filed motions to deposit the preliminary
compensation determined by the PARAD. The RTC ordered LBP to deposit
the provisional compensation as determined by the PARAD as there is no
law which prohibits LBP to make a deposit pending the fixing of the final
amount of just compensation. There is no reason for LBP to further delay
the deposits considering that the DAR already took possession of the
properties and distributed the same to FBs as early as 1972.
The CA held that the immediate deposit of the preliminary value of the
expropriated properties is improper because it was erroneously computed
(citing Gabatin v. LBP). The PARAD incorrectly used the amounts of P500
and P300 which are the prevailing GSP for palay and corn at the time of
payment instead of P35 and P31, the prevailing GSP at the time of taking in
1972.
ISSUE: Whether or not the determination of just compensation should be
based on the value of the expropriated properties at the time of payment.
HELD: Yes. The expropriation of the landholding DID NOT take place upon
the date of effectivity of PD 27 on 21 October 1972 but would take effect on
the payment of just compensation judicially determined (citing LBP v.
Natividad, OP v. CA). Expropriation of landholdings covered by RA 6657
takes place, NOT on the effectivity of the Act on 15 June 1988 but on the
payment of just compensation.
Petitioners were deprived of their properties without payment of just
compensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite before the property
can be taken away from its owners. The CARP Law, for its part, conditions
the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on
receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by
the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank.
Until then, title remains with the landowner. No outright change of
ownership is contemplated either. Petitioners were deprived of their
properties way back in 1972, yet to date, they have not yet received just
compensation. Thus, it would certainly be inequitable to determine just
compensation based on the guideline provided by P.D. No. 227 and E.O. No.
228 considering the failure to determine just compensation for a
considerable length of time. That just compensation should be determined
in accordance with R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. No. 227 or E.O. No. 228, is
important considering that just compensation should be the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the
equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.
In determining just compensation, the following factors should be
considered (based on Sec. 17 of RA 6657):
• cost of acquisition of the land
• the current value of like properties
• its nature, actual use and income
• the sworn valuation by the owner
• the tax declarations
• the assessment made by the government assessors
• the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and
farmworkers and by the government to the property
• non payment of taxes or loans secured from a government financing
institution
This has been converted into formula by the DAR with AO 5, series of 1998:
LV = (Capitalized Net Income x 0.6) + (Comparable Sales x 0.3) + (Market
Value per Tax Declaration x 0.1)