Lawyerly

GR No. 171101

2011-11-22

HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL

VELASCO JR., J.

FARM argues that this Court ignored certain material facts when it limited the maximum area to be covered to 4,915.75 hectares, whereas the area that should, at the least, be covered is 6,443 hectares,[26] which is the agricultural land allegedly covered by RA 6657 and previously held by Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco).[27]

GR Nos. 178034 & 178117; GR Nos. 186984-85

2009-09-18

ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

While in certain instances, we allow a relaxation in the application of the rules, we never intend to forge a weapon for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances,[40] but none obtains in this case. The NLRC had, therefore, the full discretion to grant or deny their motion to reduce the amount of the appeal bond. The finding of the labor tribunal that respondents did not present sufficient justification for the reduction thereof cannot be said to have been done with grave abuse of discretion.

GR No. 164025

2009-05-08

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF HONORATO DE LEON

TINGA, J.

Thus, the Court ruled in Paris v. Alfeche[17] that when the passage of R.A. No. 6657 supervened before the payment of just compensation, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 on just compensation would be applicable. The same pronouncement has been reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[18] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao,[19] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Domingo[20] and LBP v. Heirs of Cruz.[21]

GR No. 168631

2009-04-07

LAND BANK OF PHILLIPINES v. ABELLO

PERALTA, J.

In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[37] the Court held that the determination of just compensation should be in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 and EO 228, thus:It would certainly 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. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative 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."

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.

Particularly, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[32] where the agrarian reform process in said case "is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be settled," the Court held therein that just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under R.A. No. 6657.[33]

GR No. 177607

2009-01-19

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

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Since Gabatin, however, the Court has decided several cases in which it found it more equitable to determine just compensation based on the value of said property at the time of payment, foremost of which is Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[38] cited by the Court of Appeals in its Decision assailed herein.

GR No. 174109

2008-12-24

RURAL BANK OF SEVEN LAKES v. BELEN A. DAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The Court cannot sanction Dan's utter disregard of procedural rules. It must be emphasized that procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While in certain instances, the Court allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, it never intends to forge a weapon for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Party litigants and their counsel are well advised to abide by, rather than flaunt, procedural rules, for these rules illumine the path of the law and rationalize the pursuit of justice.[24] It is this symbiosis between form and substance that guarantees that discernible result.[25]

GR No. 167809

2008-11-27

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO

REYES, R.T., J.

In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao,[48] the Court ruled that taking into account the passage of RA No. 6657 in 1988 pending the settlement of just compensation, it is that law which applies to landholdings seized under PD No. 27, with said decree and EO No. 288 having only suppletory effect. Prior to that declaration, the Court already decreed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[49] citing Paris v. Alfeche,[50] that:Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (6657) before the completion of the process, the just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche.[51]

GR No. 175175

2008-09-29

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO CRUZ

TINGA, J.

In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[27] the Court explained why the guidelines under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 are no longer applicable to the delayed payment of lands acquired under P.D. No. 27, to wit:It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD No. 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time.That just compensation should be determined in accordancewithRA6657,and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative 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.[28]

GR No. 164195

2007-12-19

APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The argument of LBP that the real properties of AFC and HPI must have a lower valuation, since they are agricultural, conveniently disregards our repeated pronouncement that in determining the just compensation to be paid to the landowner, all the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, as well as its improvements and capabilities, should be considered.[12]

GR NO. 166777

2007-07-10

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. VICENTE M. ESTANISLAO AND LUZ B. HERMOSA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

This Court held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad[23] that seizure of landholdings or properties covered by P.D. No. 27 did not take place on October 21, 1972, but upon the payment of just compensation. Taking into account the passage in 1988 of R.A. No. 6657 pending the settlement of just compensation, this Court concluded that it is R.A. No. 6657 which is the applicable law, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. 228 having only suppletory effect.

GR NO. 170220

2006-11-20

JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[24] the Court ruled thus:Land Bank's contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on October 21, 1972, the time of the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just compensation should be based on the value of the property as of that time and not at the time of possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office of the President, Malacañang, Manila v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that the seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation.

GR NO. 156304

2006-10-23

ANACLETO R. MENESES v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It should also be pointed out, however, that in the more recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Natividad,[34] the Court categorically ruled: "the seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of P.D. No. 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation." Under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, the following factors are considered in determining just compensation, to wit: Sec. 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, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm-workers 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. (Emphasis supplied) Consequently, the question that arises is which of these two rulings should be applied?

GR NO. 144024

2006-07-27

PEDRO TAGABI v. MARGARITO TANQUE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In explaining the importance of faithful compliance with procedural rules, this Court held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad[20] that:[P]rocedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While in certain instances, the Court allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, there is no intention to forge a weapon for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Party litigants and their counsel are well advised to abide by, rather than flaunt, procedural rules for these rules illumine the path of the law and rationalize the pursuit of justice.[21]

	GR No. 171101 2011-11-22	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
FARM argues that this Court ignored certain material facts when it limited the maximum area to be covered to 4,915.75 hectares, whereas the area that should, at the least, be covered is 6,443 hectares,[26] which is the agricultural land allegedly covered by RA 6657 and previously held by Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco).[27]
	GR Nos. 178034 & 178117; GR Nos. 186984-85 2009-09-18	ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While in certain instances, we allow a relaxation in the application of the rules, we never intend to forge a weapon for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances,[40] but none obtains in this case. The NLRC had, therefore, the full discretion to grant or deny their motion to reduce the amount of the appeal bond. The finding of the labor tribunal that respondents did not present sufficient justification for the reduction thereof cannot be said to have been done with grave abuse of discretion.
	GR No. 164025 2009-05-08	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF HONORATO DE LEON TINGA, J.
Thus, the Court ruled in Paris v. Alfeche[17] that when the passage of R.A. No. 6657 supervened before the payment of just compensation, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 on just compensation would be applicable. The same pronouncement has been reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[18] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao,[19] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Domingo[20] and LBP v. Heirs of Cruz.[21]
	GR No. 168631 2009-04-07	LAND BANK OF PHILLIPINES v. ABELLO PERALTA, J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[37] the Court held that the determination of just compensation should be in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 and EO 228, thus:It would certainly 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. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative 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."
	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.
Particularly, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[32] where the agrarian reform process in said case "is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be settled," the Court held therein that just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under R.A. No. 6657.[33]
	GR No. 177607 2009-01-19	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PACITA AGRICULTURAL MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Since Gabatin, however, the Court has decided several cases in which it found it more equitable to determine just compensation based on the value of said property at the time of payment, foremost of which is Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[38] cited by the Court of Appeals in its Decision assailed herein.
	GR No. 174109 2008-12-24	RURAL BANK OF SEVEN LAKES v. BELEN A. DAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court cannot sanction Dan's utter disregard of procedural rules. It must be emphasized that procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While in certain instances, the Court allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, it never intends to forge a weapon for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Party litigants and their counsel are well advised to abide by, rather than flaunt, procedural rules, for these rules illumine the path of the law and rationalize the pursuit of justice.[24] It is this symbiosis between form and substance that guarantees that discernible result.[25]
	GR No. 167809 2008-11-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO REYES, R.T., J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao,[48] the Court ruled that taking into account the passage of RA No. 6657 in 1988 pending the settlement of just compensation, it is that law which applies to landholdings seized under PD No. 27, with said decree and EO No. 288 having only suppletory effect. Prior to that declaration, the Court already decreed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[49] citing Paris v. Alfeche,[50] that:Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (6657) before the completion of the process, the just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche.[51]
	GR No. 175175 2008-09-29	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO CRUZ TINGA, J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[27] the Court explained why the guidelines under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 are no longer applicable to the delayed payment of lands acquired under P.D. No. 27, to wit:It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD No. 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time.That just compensation should be determined in accordancewithRA6657,and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative 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.[28]
	GR No. 164195 2007-12-19	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The argument of LBP that the real properties of AFC and HPI must have a lower valuation, since they are agricultural, conveniently disregards our repeated pronouncement that in determining the just compensation to be paid to the landowner, all the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, as well as its improvements and capabilities, should be considered.[12]
	GR NO. 166777 2007-07-10	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. VICENTE M. ESTANISLAO AND LUZ B. HERMOSA CARPIO MORALES, J.
This Court held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad[23] that seizure of landholdings or properties covered by P.D. No. 27 did not take place on October 21, 1972, but upon the payment of just compensation. Taking into account the passage in 1988 of R.A. No. 6657 pending the settlement of just compensation, this Court concluded that it is R.A. No. 6657 which is the applicable law, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. 228 having only suppletory effect.
	GR NO. 170220 2006-11-20	JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[24] the Court ruled thus:Land Bank's contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on October 21, 1972, the time of the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just compensation should be based on the value of the property as of that time and not at the time of possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office of the President, Malacañang, Manila v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that the seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation.
	GR NO. 156304 2006-10-23	ANACLETO R. MENESES v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It should also be pointed out, however, that in the more recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Natividad,[34] the Court categorically ruled: "the seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of P.D. No. 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation." Under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, the following factors are considered in determining just compensation, to wit: Sec. 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, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm-workers 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. (Emphasis supplied) Consequently, the question that arises is which of these two rulings should be applied?
	GR NO. 144024 2006-07-27	PEDRO TAGABI v. MARGARITO TANQUE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In explaining the importance of faithful compliance with procedural rules, this Court held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad[20] that:[P]rocedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While in certain instances, the Court allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, there is no intention to forge a weapon for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Party litigants and their counsel are well advised to abide by, rather than flaunt, procedural rules for these rules illumine the path of the law and rationalize the pursuit of justice.[21]

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ELI G. C. NATIVIDAD