Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DECISION
TINGA , J : p
Be that as it may, the SAC's reliance on the valuation made by the appraisal
company is misplaced, since the valuation was not arrived at using the factors required
by the law and prescribed by the AO No. 5.
Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 which enumerates the factors to be considered in
determining just compensation reads:
SECTION 17. Determination of Just Compensation. — In determining just
compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like
properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner,
tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be
considered. The social and economic bene ts 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 nancing institutions
on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its
valuation.
These factors have already been incorporated in a basic formula by the DAR
pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. AO No. 5
precisely lled in the details of Section 17, R.A. No. 6657 by providing a basic formula
by which the factors mentioned therein may be taken into account. 2 9 This formula has
to be considered by the SAC in tandem with all the factors referred to in Section 17 of
the law. The administrative order provides:
A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by
VOS or CA:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
Where:
LV = Land Value
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
A3. When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is applicable,
the formula shall be:
LV = MV x 2
In no case shall the value of idle land using the formula MV x 2 exceed
the lowest value of land within the same estate under consideration or within
the same barangay or municipality (in that order) approved by LBP within one
(1) year from receipt of claimfolder. cSaADC
Where:
CNI = (AGP x SP) - CO
.12
AGP = Average Gross Production corresponding to the latest available 12
months' gross production immediately preceding the date of FI ( eld
investigation)
SP = Selling Price (the average of the latest available 12 months selling
prices prior to the date of receipt of the CF (claim folder) by LBP for processing,
such prices to be secured from the Department of Agriculture (DA) and other
appropriate regulatory bodies or, in their absence, from the Bureau of
Agricultural Statistics. If possible, SP data shall be gathered for the barangay or
municipality where the property is located. In the absence thereof, SP may be
secured within the province or region. IcHTCS
CO = Cost of Operations
Whenever the cost of operations could not be obtained or veri ed, an
assumed net income rate (NIR) of 20% shall be used. Landholdings planted to
coconut which are productive at the time of FI shall continue to use the
assumed NIR of 70%. DAR and LBP shall continue to conduct joint industry
studies to establish the applicable NIR for each crop covered under CARP.
0.12 = Capitalization rate
We nd that the factors required by the law and enforced by the DAR
Administrative Order were not observed by the SAC when it adopted wholeheartedly
the valuation arrived at in the appraisal report. According to the appraisal company, it
"personally inspected the property, investigated local market conditions, and have given
consideration to the extent, character and utility of the property; sales and holding
prices of similar land; and highest and best use of the property." 3 0 The value of the land
was arrived at using the market data approach, which bases the value of the land on
sales and listings of comparable property registered within the vicinity. 3 1 In fact, as
noted by the Court of Appeals, a representative of the company admitted that it did not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
consider the CARP valuation to be applicable. 3 2 ISCTcH
This is not to say that the Court favors the valuation given by LBP. While it
presented a land valuation worksheet 3 3 and a claims valuation and processing form, 3 4
which both value the land at P315,307.87, we nd that LBP's valuation is too low vis-á-
vis the value suggested by the appraisal company. Moreover, we observe that the
valuation was not arrived at based on all the factors provided in the law. As admitted by
its agrarian affairs specialist, she had not gone over the property before she made the
valuation, nor was she aware of adjacent properties/structures. 3 5 The LBP was not
thorough in its valuation of the subject property.
All told, we nd that the remand of the case is in order to better determine the
proper valuation of the subject property.
We clarify, however, that we are not in accord with the declaration of the Court of
Appeals on the appointment of commissioners in the instant case. According to the
appellate court:
. . . Consequently, when the Regional Trial Court acting as a Special
Agrarian Court determines just compensation, it is mandated to apply the Rules
of Court. 3 6 The rules on expropriation, on the other hand, speci cally under
Section 5 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure provides to wit:
SEC. 5. Ascertainment of compensation. — Upon the rendition of the order
of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than three (3) competent
and disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the
court the just compensation for the property sought to be taken. The order
of appointment shall designate the time and place of the rst session of
the hearing to be held by the commissioners and specify the time within
which their report is to be filed with the court.
EIaDHS
With the remand of the case, it is now up to the SAC, or to the parties, to
determine if there is a need to avail of commissioners to arrive at the proper valuation
of the subject land.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as above indicated. The case is REMANDED to the
Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan acting as a Special Agrarian Court for the
determination of just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of Republic Act No.
6657. aESIDH
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Carpio-Morales and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
2. Id. at 25-38.
3. The property, covered by Transfer Certi cate of Title (TCT) No. T-26258, is located in
Mandama, Hermosa, Bataan and has an area of approximately 6.7540 hectares. IcHDCS
4. The valuation was made by the Land Bank of the Philippines pursuant to Executive Order No.
405, dated 14 June 1990.
9. Entitled Sps. Edmond Lee and Helen Huang v. Department of Agrarian Reform, et al.
10. Decision, rollo, pp. 46-50.
11. CA rollo, pp. 10-41.
12. The Court of Appeals cited T'boli Agro-Industrial Dev't., Inc. v. Solipapsi , * 442 Phil. 499
(2002) and Consolidated Cases of Land Bank of the Phils. v. Wycoco , 464 Phil. 83
(2004).
13. Rollo, p. 34.
14. Id. at 36.
15. Id.