You are on page 1of 4

10/13/2018

LAND BANK OF THE FA C T S :


LBP and the DAR insisted that the valuation
PHILIPPINES Rizalina Gustilo Barrido and the Heirs of Romeo made is correct based on the formula in P.D. No.
VS. Barrido are the registered owners of a parcel of land 27 as supplemented by E.O. No. 228. The
RIZALINA GUSTILO with an area of 89,204 sq.m. covered by Original prescribed formula is as follows:
Certificate of Title No. 0-6318 in Brgy. Apologista, Land Value = Average Gross Production (AGP) x 2.5 x
BARRIDO AND HEIRS OF Sara, Iloilo. Government Support Price (GSP)
ROMEO BARRIDO The government expropriated a portion of the The RTC rendered a Decision fixing the just
property consisting of 43,461 sq.m. for distribution to compensation at ₱94, 797.09 per hectare. It also
the farmer-beneficiaries under the Land Reform
G.R. NO. 183688 AUGUST 18, 2010 Program.
awarded 12% interest in the form of damages in
view of the delay in the payment of just
LBP offered Barrido a total amount of ₱60,385.49 as compensation.
Reported by: ANGELICA DIAZ just compensation, but rejected the offer.

ISSUE/S: HELD:

W/N the CA committed serious errors of law when it If just compensation is not settled prior to the passage Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to
affirmed the decision and order of the RTC, finding of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, it should be disregard the formula laid down in DAR A.O.
that the applicable law is R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. computed in accordance with said law even if the No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an
No. 27 and E.O. No. 228. property was acquired under P.D. No. 27.
administrative order is declared invalid, courts
The fixing of just compensation should, therefore, be have no option but to apply it. The courts cannot
W/N the CA committed serious errors of law when it based on the parameters prescribed in R.A. No. 6657, ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the
affirmed the trial court that fixed the just compensation with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 having only
suppletory effect. Specifically, Section 17 of R.A. 6657 formula provided by the DAR for the
which is not in accordance with the provisions of R.A. determination of just compensation.
No. 6657 as translated into a basic formula under is the principal basis of the computation for just
DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1998. compensation.
10/13/2018

FA C T S :

• Conrado O. Colarina is the registered owner of three (3)


As the RTC based its valuation on a different LAND BANK OF THE parcels of agricultural land which he acquired from their
formula and without taking into consideration PHILIPPINES former owner, Damiana Arcega. The parcels of land have
a total area of 972,047 square meters with the following
the factors in Section 17 of R.A. 6657, the case VS. description:
is REMANDED to the court of origin of the
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, which is CONRADO O. COLARINA
directed to determine with dispatch the just
compensation due respondents Barrido in G.R. NO. 176410 SEPTEMBER 1, 2010
accordance with the formula laid down in DAR
Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998.

• Upon acquisition thereof, respondent manifested his voluntary • As the LBP’s assessment and valuation of the properties was
offer to sell the properties to the Department of Agrarian unacceptable to, and rejected by, respondent, he elevated the • Respondent presented in evidence his own
Reform (DAR) for coverage under Republic Act (R.A.) No. determination of just compensation of the properties to the testimony and that of Carlito M. Oliva (Oliva), then
6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). Assistant Provincial Assessor of Camarines Sur and
Respondent’s assessment value of the properties was Unfortunately for respondent, the PARAD affirmed the President of the Camarines Chapter of the National
₱45,000.00 per hectare. valuation set forth by the LBP. Respondent filed a Real Estate Association.
Complaint before the RTC, Branch 3, Legazpi, Albay, for
• The DAR, through petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines
the judicial determination of just compensation.
(LBP), assessed the properties and offered to purchase only • As for petitioner, it presented the testimonies of
57.2047 hectares out of the 97.2047 hectares voluntarily offered • LBP manifested that the subject properties may be Armel Alcantara (Alcantara), Chief of the
for sale by respondent. The excluded area (40 hectares) fell reassessed and revaluated based on the new guidelines set
forth in DAR A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994. Intent on finding
Landowners Assistance Division of the LBP, and
under the exemptions and exclusions provided in Section 10 of Melchor Balmaceda, officer of LBP, Sipocot
the CARL, i.e., all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and a common ground between petitioner and respondent and to
amicably settle the case, the SAC ordered the revaluation.
Branch.
over.
10/13/2018

HELD:
ISSUE/S:
• After determining the existence of the property, the DAR, • To begin with, under Section 1 of Executive Order No.
Land Bank and the other agencies concerned conducted an 405 (1990), the Landbank is charged "primarily" with "the
ocular inspection of the property being offered for sale under W/N the CA committed serious errors of law determination of the land valuation and compensation for
CARP or covered by the CARP. The data in-put were when it treated the taking of agricultural lands all private lands suitable for agriculture under the
gathered in the field including the number of fruit bearing for agrarian reform purposes as an ordinary Voluntary Offer to Sell or Compulsory Acquisition
trees also determined. The production data was also taken arrangement…" For its part, the DAR relies on the
and a survey was being conducted in the field on adjacent expropriation of private property for public use. determination of the land valuation and compensation by
properties. the Landbank.

Whether the lower courts’ computation of just


• The SAC rendered a decision reconciling the conflicting • A party who disagrees with the decision of the DAR
evidence of the parties. The SAC followed the formula of the compensation for the subject properties is adjudicator may bring the matter to the RTC designated as
LBP and its land use classification of the subject properties; correct. a Special Agrarian Court "for final determination of just
the appraisal report on the valuation thereof. compensation."

• These factors have been translated into a basic formula in DAR


Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by DAR
Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1994, issued pursuant to the
• In the proceedings before the RTC, it is mandated to apply the Rules of DAR’s rule-making power to carry out the object and purposes of R.A.
Court and, on its own initiative or at the instance of any of the parties, 6657, as amended. • The factors for the determination of just compensation in
"appoint one or more commissioners to examine, investigate and ascertain
• While SAC is required to consider the acquisition cost of the land, the
Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, and consequently converted into
facts relevant to the dispute, including the valuation of properties, and to a formula in A.O. No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by A.O.
file a written report thereof x x x." In determining just compensation: current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the
sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declaration and the assessments No. 11, Series of 1994, is mandatory.
• "Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. – In determining just made by the government assessors to determine just compensation, it is
compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like equally true that these factors have been translated into a basic formula
properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of RA • We note that A.O. No. 6, Series of 1992 (as amended by
owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government No. 6657. As the government agency principally tasked to implement the A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994) has been superseded by A.O.
assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits agrarian reform program, it is the DAR’s duty to issue rules and No. 5, Series of 1998. However, A.O. No. 5, Series of 1998, is
contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government regulations to carry out the object of the law. DAR AO No. 5, s. of 1998
to the property, as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from not applicable to the present case as the subject properties
precisely "filled in the details" of Section 17, RA No. 6657 by providing a
any government financing institution on the said land, shall be considered basic formula by which the factors mentioned therein may be taken into were assessed and valued prior to its effectivity.
as additional factors to determine its valuation." account. The SAC was at no liberty to disregard the formula which was
devised to implement the said provision.
10/13/2018

• WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision


of the Court of Appeals and the decision of the Regional Trial
• While we commend respondent in readily participating in Court, Branch 3, Legazpi City, Albay are REVERSED and SET
the government’s agrarian reform program, our previous ASIDE. Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines is hereby
rulings preclude us from validating the valuation of the ordered to pay respondent Conrado O. Colarina the following
subject properties proffered to, and affirmed by, the SAC. amounts:
The government cannot be forced to purchase land which it 1. ₱259,525.41 for 28.3062 hectares of TCT No. 86448;
finds no need for, regardless of Oliva’s unschooled opinion. 2. ₱217,223.60 for 22.3267 hectares of TCT No. 86449; and
Considering respondent’s belief that the properties are
3. ₱51,762.90 for 6.5718 hectares of TCT No. 86402.
worth more than the valuation made by the DAR, he can
proceed to develop the land excluded by the DAR from
expropriation into its potential use as assessed by Oliva. • Petitioner shall pay twelve percent (12%) interest per annum from
finality of this judgment until complete satisfaction thereof.