Lawyerly

GR No. 177190

2011-02-23

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

VELASCO JR., J.

Private respondent Lubrica argues that, under the doctrines of res judicata and stare decisis, the instant case must be dismissed in light of the decision of this Court in Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[14] the dispositive portion of which reads:

GR No. 172230

2011-02-02

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MAGIN FERRER

MENDOZA, J.

The retroactive application of R.A. No. 6657 is not only statutory but is also founded on equitable considerations. In Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[13] the Court declared that it would be highly inequitable on the part of the landowners therein to compute just compensation using the values at the time of taking in 1972, and not at the time of payment, considering that the government and the farmer-beneficiaries have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof has not yet been transferred in their names. The same equitable consideration is applicable to the factual milieu of the instant case. The records show that respondents' property had been placed under the agrarian reform program in 1972 and had already been distributed to the beneficiaries but respondents have yet to receive just compensation due them. [Emphases supplied]

GR No. 180803

2009-10-23

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. J. L. JOCSON

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Petitioner's interpretation is flawed. In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Chico,[27] the Court declared in no uncertain terms that R.A. No. 6657 is the relevant law for determining just compensation after noting several decided cases[28] where the Court found it more equitable to determine just compensation based on the value of the property at the time of payment. This was a clear departure from the Court's earlier stance in Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines[29] where it declared that the reckoning period for the determination of just compensation is the time when the land was taken applying P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228.

AM No. RTJ-07-2089

2009-09-08

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JUDGE ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In a Memorandum dated October 4, 2008,[29] the OCA found that respondent validly issued the March 4, 2005 Order as it was based on this Court's ruling in Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines[30] involving another property of Josefina, which reinstated an order directing LBP to deposit the just compensation provisionally determined by PARAD.[31]

GR No. 179862

2009-09-03

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ASUNCION AÑONUEVO VDA. DE SANTOS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[21] the lands were acquired from their owners on 21 October 1972, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, but they remained unpaid until the year 2003. This prompted the landowners to file separate petitions for determination of just compensation for their lands. Upon appeal to us, we held that the just compensation should be determined under the CARL, viz: Petitioners insist that the determination of just compensation should be based on the value of the expropriated properties at the time of payment. Respondent LBP, on the other hand, claims that the value of the realties should be computed as of October 21, 1972 when P.D. No. 27 took effect.

GR No. 168453

2009-03-13

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HERNANDO T. CHICO

As to the legal basis of just compensation, we hold that the applicable law is R.A. No. 6657. Our recent ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Pacita Agricultural Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc., etc., et al.[41] is enlightening. Therein, the Court made a comparative analysis of cases that confronted the issue of whether properties covered by P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228, for which the landowners had yet to be paid, would be compensated under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 or under the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6657. We observed that in Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines[42] - a case which LBP invokes in this controversy - the Court declared that the reckoning period for the determination of just compensation should be the time when the land was taken, i.e., in 1972, applying P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228. However, the Court also noted that after Gabatin, the Court had decided several cases in which it found it more equitable to determine just compensation based on the value of the property at the time of payment. These cases are Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[43] Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform[44] and Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[45] including the earlier cases of Office of the President v. Court of Appeals[46] and Paris v. Alfeche.[47]

GR No. 173226

2009-01-20

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL O. GALLEGO

TINGA, J.

The retroactive application of R.A. No. 6657 is not only statutory[34] but is also founded on equitable considerations. In Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[35] the Court declared that it would be highly inequitable on the part of the landowners therein to compute just compensation using the values at the time of taking in 1972, and not at the time of payment, considering that the government and the farmer-beneficiaries have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof has not yet been transferred in their names. The same equitable consideration is applicable to the factual milieu of the instant case. The records show that respondents' property had been placed under the agrarian reform program in 1972 and had already been distributed to the beneficiaries but respondents have yet to receive just compensation due them.

GR No. 177607

2009-01-19

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PACITA AGRICULTURAL MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the even more recent case, Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[42] the Court also adhered to Natividad, viz:The Natividad case reiterated the Court's ruling in Office of the President v. Court of Appeals [413 Phil. 711] that the expropriation of the landholding did not take place on the effectivity of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972 but seizure would take effect on the payment of just compensation judicially determined.

GR No. 167809

2008-11-27

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO

REYES, R.T., J.

The application of RA No. 6657 due to the inequity faced by landowners continued in Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines.[62] The landowners were also deprived of their properties in 1972 but had yet to receive their just compensation even after the passage of RA No. 6657. Since the landholdings were already subdivided and distributed to the farmer-beneficiaries, the Court, speaking through Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, deemed it unreasonable to compute just compensation using the values at the time of taking in 1972 as dictated by PD No. 27, and not at the time of payment pursuant to RA No. 6657.

GR No. 168533

2008-02-04

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ANGEL T. DOMINGO

CARPIO, J.

In Lubrica v. Land Bank,[45] the Court mandated that "Land Bank should compensate the landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP or as may be finally determined by the Court as the just compensation."

	GR No. 177190 2011-02-23	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN VELASCO JR., J.
Private respondent Lubrica argues that, under the doctrines of res judicata and stare decisis, the instant case must be dismissed in light of the decision of this Court in Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[14] the dispositive portion of which reads:
	GR No. 172230 2011-02-02	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MAGIN FERRER MENDOZA, J.
The retroactive application of R.A. No. 6657 is not only statutory but is also founded on equitable considerations. In Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[13] the Court declared that it would be highly inequitable on the part of the landowners therein to compute just compensation using the values at the time of taking in 1972, and not at the time of payment, considering that the government and the farmer-beneficiaries have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof has not yet been transferred in their names. The same equitable consideration is applicable to the factual milieu of the instant case. The records show that respondents' property had been placed under the agrarian reform program in 1972 and had already been distributed to the beneficiaries but respondents have yet to receive just compensation due them. [Emphases supplied]
	GR No. 180803 2009-10-23	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. J. L. JOCSON CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner's interpretation is flawed. In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Chico,[27] the Court declared in no uncertain terms that R.A. No. 6657 is the relevant law for determining just compensation after noting several decided cases[28] where the Court found it more equitable to determine just compensation based on the value of the property at the time of payment. This was a clear departure from the Court's earlier stance in Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines[29] where it declared that the reckoning period for the determination of just compensation is the time when the land was taken applying P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228.
	AM No. RTJ-07-2089 2009-09-08	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JUDGE ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
In a Memorandum dated October 4, 2008,[29] the OCA found that respondent validly issued the March 4, 2005 Order as it was based on this Court's ruling in Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines[30] involving another property of Josefina, which reinstated an order directing LBP to deposit the just compensation provisionally determined by PARAD.[31]
	GR No. 179862 2009-09-03	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ASUNCION AÑONUEVO VDA. DE SANTOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[21] the lands were acquired from their owners on 21 October 1972, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, but they remained unpaid until the year 2003. This prompted the landowners to file separate petitions for determination of just compensation for their lands. Upon appeal to us, we held that the just compensation should be determined under the CARL, viz: Petitioners insist that the determination of just compensation should be based on the value of the expropriated properties at the time of payment. Respondent LBP, on the other hand, claims that the value of the realties should be computed as of October 21, 1972 when P.D. No. 27 took effect.
	GR No. 168453 2009-03-13	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HERNANDO T. CHICO
As to the legal basis of just compensation, we hold that the applicable law is R.A. No. 6657. Our recent ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Pacita Agricultural Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc., etc., et al.[41] is enlightening. Therein, the Court made a comparative analysis of cases that confronted the issue of whether properties covered by P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228, for which the landowners had yet to be paid, would be compensated under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 or under the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6657. We observed that in Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines[42] - a case which LBP invokes in this controversy - the Court declared that the reckoning period for the determination of just compensation should be the time when the land was taken, i.e., in 1972, applying P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228. However, the Court also noted that after Gabatin, the Court had decided several cases in which it found it more equitable to determine just compensation based on the value of the property at the time of payment. These cases are Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[43] Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform[44] and Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[45] including the earlier cases of Office of the President v. Court of Appeals[46] and Paris v. Alfeche.[47]
	GR No. 173226 2009-01-20	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL O. GALLEGO TINGA, J.
The retroactive application of R.A. No. 6657 is not only statutory[34] but is also founded on equitable considerations. In Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[35] the Court declared that it would be highly inequitable on the part of the landowners therein to compute just compensation using the values at the time of taking in 1972, and not at the time of payment, considering that the government and the farmer-beneficiaries have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof has not yet been transferred in their names. The same equitable consideration is applicable to the factual milieu of the instant case. The records show that respondents' property had been placed under the agrarian reform program in 1972 and had already been distributed to the beneficiaries but respondents have yet to receive just compensation due them.
	GR No. 177607 2009-01-19	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PACITA AGRICULTURAL MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the even more recent case, Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[42] the Court also adhered to Natividad, viz:The Natividad case reiterated the Court's ruling in Office of the President v. Court of Appeals [413 Phil. 711] that the expropriation of the landholding did not take place on the effectivity of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972 but seizure would take effect on the payment of just compensation judicially determined.
	GR No. 167809 2008-11-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO REYES, R.T., J.
The application of RA No. 6657 due to the inequity faced by landowners continued in Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines.[62] The landowners were also deprived of their properties in 1972 but had yet to receive their just compensation even after the passage of RA No. 6657. Since the landholdings were already subdivided and distributed to the farmer-beneficiaries, the Court, speaking through Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, deemed it unreasonable to compute just compensation using the values at the time of taking in 1972 as dictated by PD No. 27, and not at the time of payment pursuant to RA No. 6657.
	GR No. 168533 2008-02-04	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ANGEL T. DOMINGO CARPIO, J.
In Lubrica v. Land Bank,[45] the Court mandated that "Land Bank should compensate the landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP or as may be finally determined by the Court as the just compensation."

JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES