Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RIZALINA GUSTILO BARRIDO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 189125 2013-08-28	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BIENVENIDO CASTRO PEREZ, J.
We need to scrape off the procedural lamina to reach the basic issue that it coated: the correctness of the valuation by the courts below of the property of Castro which he offered to sell to the DAR. Vital to the resolution of the issue is the fact stated by Castro in his petition below that "on June 20, 1994, [he] voluntarily offered to sell (VOS) the above described land to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)"[18] such that his petition was precisely captioned "In the Matter of Judicial Determination of Just Compensation of Land Sold Under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) Under RA 6657, Identified as Lot No. 2636, CAD. 537-D, with an area of 9.3390 Has. located at Brgy. Mahayag, San Miguel, Surigao del Sur."[19] The petition is a prayer for just compensation, under RA No. 6657, of a parcel of land taken when offered in 1994. The determination of compensation under such circumstances has been the subject of various decisions of this Court. We stated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Goduco,[20] referring to Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido;[21] Land of the Philippines v. Esther Rivera;[22] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. DAR:[23]
	GR No. 192890 2013-06-17	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. VIRGINIA PALMARES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The principal basis of the computation for just compensation is Section 17 of RA 6657,[20] which enumerates the following factors to guide the special agrarian courts in the determination thereof: (1) the acquisition cost of the land; (2) the current value of the properties; (3) its nature, actual use, and income; (4) the sworn valuation by the owner; (5) the tax declarations; (6) the assessment made by government assessors; (7) the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the government to the property; and (8) the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land, if any.[21] Pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49[22] of the same law, the DAR translated these factors into a basic formula.[23]
	GR No. 174007 2012-06-27	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MANOLO V. GODUCO PEREZ, J.
This formula has been repeatedly applied in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido;[41] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Esther Rivera;[42] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Department of Agrarian Reform.[43]
	GR No. 171038 2012-06-20	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF JUAN LOPEZ BRION, J.
The DAR, as the administrative agency tasked with the implementation of the agrarian reform program and pursuant to its rule-making power under R.A. No. 6657, translated the factors in Section 17 into a basic formula in DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 1992, [23] and those found in succeeding DAR administrative regulations. In various cases, we emphasized the mandatory application of these formulas and imposed upon the RTC-SACs the duty to apply, and not to disregard, them in determining just compensation.[24]
	GR No. 169903 2012-02-29	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION BRION, J.
We reiterated the mandatory application of the formula in the applicable DAR administrative regulations in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[24] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,[25] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido.[26] In Barrido, we were explicit in stating that: While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court, the judge cannot abuse his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules. Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula laid down in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply it. The courts cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided by the DAR for the determination of just compensation.[27] (emphases ours)
	GR No. 172230 2011-02-02	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MAGIN FERRER MENDOZA, J.
The above rulings were reiterated in the recent cases of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rizalina Gustilo Barrido and Heirs of Romeo Barrido[14] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Enrique Livioco.[15]
	GR No. 171685 2010-10-11	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. GLENN Y. ESCANDOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
This Court recently reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido[31]: While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court, the judge cannot abuse his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules. Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula laid down in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply it. The courts cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided by the DAR for the determination of just compensation.