This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-07-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Pacita Agricultural Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc.,[11] we ruled that since the Gabatin case, this Court had already decided several cases in which it found more equitable to determine just compensation based on the GSP of palay at the current price or the value of said property at the time of payment. In this case, the Court used the standard laid down in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657[12] (RA No. 6657) as a guidepost in the determination of just compensation in relation to the GSP of palay, viz.: In Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, the formula under Presidential Decree No. 27, Executive Order No. 228 and A.O. No. 13 was applied. In Gabatin, the crux of the case was the valuation of the GSP for one cavan of palay. In said case, the SAC fixed the government support price (GSP) of palay at the current price of P400 as basis for the computation of the payment, and not the GSP at the time of taking in 1972. On appeal therein by respondent Land Bank of the Philippines, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the SAC. The case was then elevated to this Court, wherein therein petitioners set forth, inter alia, the issue of whether just compensation in kind (palay) shall be appraised at the price of the commodity at the time of the taking or at the time it was ordered paid by the SAC. The Court declared that the reckoning period should be the time when the land was taken in 1972, based on the following ratiocination. | |||||
|
2013-07-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, neither the parties nor the RTC found the computation of the Commissioners acceptable. Resultantly, in a Decision[6] dated August 23, 1995, the RTC made its own computation by using the formula used by the Commissioner representing the LBP with the slight modification that it used the government support price (GSP) for one cavan of palay in 1994 as multiplier. | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
|||||
| 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] | |||||