Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 160143 2014-07-02	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BENECIO EUSEBIO BRION, J.
We debunked this very same argument in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation,[27] whose factual circumstances closely mirror and are, in fact, related to those of the present case. In Honeycomb, we essentially pointed out that the "just compensation" guaranteed to a landowner under, Section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution is precisely the same as the "just compensation" embodied in Section 9, Article III of the Constitution. That is, whether for land taken pursuant to the State's agrarian reform program or for property taken for purposes other than agrarian reform, the just compensation due to an owner should be the "fair and full price of the taken property."[28]
	GR No. 172551 2014-01-15	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES BRION, J.
In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation,[35] we again affirmed the need to apply Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR AO 5-98 in just compensation cases. There, we considered the CA and the RTC in grave error when they opted to come up with their own basis for valuation and completely disregarded the DAR formula. The need to apply the parameters required by the law cannot be doubted; the DAR's administrative issuances, on the other hand, partake of the nature of statutes and have in their favor a presumption of legality.[36] Unless administrative orders are declared invalid or unless the cases before them involve situations these administrative issuances do not cover, the courts must apply them.[37]
	GR No. 188046 2013-07-24	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. AMERICAN RUBBER CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The mandatory application by the RTC of the above formula in accordance with DAR administrative orders and circulars had been settled by this Court. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation,[29] we cited a long line of jurisprudence and reiterated the standing rule on the matter: In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Sps. Banal, we recognized that the DAR, as the administrative agency tasked with the implementation of the agrarian reform program, already came up with a formula to determine just compensation which incorporated the factors enumerated in Section 17 of RA 6657. We said:
	GR No. 166259 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION BRION, J.
We agree with the LBP. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation,[48] a recent case with substantially the same factual antecedents and the same respondent company, we categorically ruled that the CA and the RTC grievously erred when they disregarded the formula laid down by the DAR, and chose instead to come up with their own basis for the valuation of the land in question, viz.: That it is the RTC, sitting as a SAC, which has the power to determine just compensation for parcels of land acquired by the State, pursuant to the agrarian reform program, is made clear in Section 57 of RA 6657, which reads: