Lawyerly

GR No. 196707

2015-06-17

SPS. NILO AND ERLINDA MERCADO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Given all these, the Court finds that both parties failed to adduce satisfactory evidence of the property's value at the time of its taking. Thus, it is premature to make a final determination of the just compensation due to petitioners. And as the Court cannot receive new evidence from the parties for the prompt resolution of this case,[47] its remand to the RTC is deemed proper. Suffice it to state that "[w]hile remand is frowned upon for obviating the speedy dispensation of justice, it becomes necessary to ensure compliance with the law and to give everyone - the landowner, the farmers, and the State - their due."[48]

GR No. 171836

2014-08-11

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. SUSIE IRENE GALLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Thus, while this Court acknowledges that Galle's estate was expropriated to the extent of 356.8257 hectares as the CA has found, the computation of the exact amount of just compensation remains an issue that must be resolved, taking into consideration both Section 17 of RA 6657 and AOs 6 and 11. In an earlier case decided by this ponente, it was held that "the evidence to be presented by the parties before the trial court for the valuation of the property x x x must conform to Section 17 of RA 6657 and, as far as practicable, DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1992, as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 11, series of 1994."[87] This was followed by a recent pronouncement to the same effect, thus: In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation, 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. 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.

GR No. 172551

2014-01-15

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES

BRION, J.

Lastly, in ascertaining just compensation, the fair market value of the expropriated property is determined as of the time of taking.[60] The "time of taking" refers to that time when the State deprived the landowner of the use and benefit of his property, as when the State acquires title to the property[61] or as of the filing of the complaint, per Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.[62]

GR No. 189125

2013-08-28

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BIENVENIDO CASTRO

PEREZ, J.

The principle of valuation at the time of taking is the specifically applicable valuation of land acquired by the government under RA No. 6657. In Land Bank v. Livioco,[37] cited in Goduco, we said:Since Livioco's property was acquired under RA 6657 and will be valued under RA 6657, the question regarding the 'time of taking' should follow the general rule in expropriation cases where the "time of taking" is the time when the State took possession of the same and deprived the landowner of the use and enjoyment of his property.[38]

GR No. 182209

2012-10-03

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. EMILIANO R. SANTIAGO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Given that the only factor considered by the SAC in the determination of just compensation was the changing government support price for a cavan of palay, this Court is constrained to remand the case to the SAC Branch 29 for the reception of evidence and determination of just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657[64] and DAR AO No. 02-09 dated October 15, 2009, the latest DAR issuance on fixing just compensation.[65]

GR No. 174007

2012-06-27

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MANOLO V. GODUCO

PEREZ, J.

One final but important point: As we at the outset clarified, the repeated rulings that the land reform process is completed only upon payment of just compensation relate to the issue of the applicable law on just compensation. The disposition that the seizure of the landholding would take effect on the payment of just compensation since it is only at that point that the land reform process is completely refers to property acquired under P.D. No. 27 but which remained unpaid until the passage of R.A. 6657. We said that in such a situation R.A. 6657 is the applicable law. But if the seizure is during the effectivity of R.A. 6657, the time of taking should follow the general rule in expropriation cases where the "time of taking" is the time when the State took possession of the same and deprived the landowner of the use and enjoyment of his property xxx. We here repeat Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioco:[45]

GR No. 178046

2012-06-13

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MONTINOLA-ESCARILLA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

For purposes of determining just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and price at the time of taking.[17] In the implementation of R.A. No. 6657, Section 17 provides the manner by which just compensation is determined, thus: Section 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 farmworkers 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.[18]

GR No. 171101

2012-04-24

HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL

VELASCO JR., J.

In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioco, the Court held that "the 'time of taking' is the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to the Republic."[15] It should be noted, however, that "taking" does not only take place upon the issuance of title either in the name of the Republic or the beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). "Taking" also occurs when agricultural lands are voluntarily offered by a landowner and approved by PARC for CARP coverage through the stock distribution scheme, as in the instant case. Thus, HLI's submitting its SDP for approval is an acknowledgment on its part that the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita are covered by CARP. However, it was the PARC approval which should be considered as the effective date of "taking" as it was only during this time that the government officially confirmed the CARP coverage of these lands.

GR No. 167735

2012-04-18

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF SALVADOR ENCINAS

BRION, J.

The "taking of private lands under the agrarian reform program partakes of the nature of an expropriation proceeding."[35] In computing the just compensation for expropriation proceedings, the RTC should take into consideration the "value of the land at the time of the taking, not at the time of the rendition of judgment."[36] "The 'time of taking' is the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to the Republic."[37]

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. 196707 2015-06-17	SPS. NILO AND ERLINDA MERCADO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Given all these, the Court finds that both parties failed to adduce satisfactory evidence of the property's value at the time of its taking. Thus, it is premature to make a final determination of the just compensation due to petitioners. And as the Court cannot receive new evidence from the parties for the prompt resolution of this case,[47] its remand to the RTC is deemed proper. Suffice it to state that "[w]hile remand is frowned upon for obviating the speedy dispensation of justice, it becomes necessary to ensure compliance with the law and to give everyone - the landowner, the farmers, and the State - their due."[48]
	GR No. 171836 2014-08-11	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. SUSIE IRENE GALLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Thus, while this Court acknowledges that Galle's estate was expropriated to the extent of 356.8257 hectares as the CA has found, the computation of the exact amount of just compensation remains an issue that must be resolved, taking into consideration both Section 17 of RA 6657 and AOs 6 and 11. In an earlier case decided by this ponente, it was held that "the evidence to be presented by the parties before the trial court for the valuation of the property x x x must conform to Section 17 of RA 6657 and, as far as practicable, DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1992, as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 11, series of 1994."[87] This was followed by a recent pronouncement to the same effect, thus: In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation, 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. 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.
	GR No. 172551 2014-01-15	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES BRION, J.
Lastly, in ascertaining just compensation, the fair market value of the expropriated property is determined as of the time of taking.[60] The "time of taking" refers to that time when the State deprived the landowner of the use and benefit of his property, as when the State acquires title to the property[61] or as of the filing of the complaint, per Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.[62]
	GR No. 189125 2013-08-28	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BIENVENIDO CASTRO PEREZ, J.
The principle of valuation at the time of taking is the specifically applicable valuation of land acquired by the government under RA No. 6657. In Land Bank v. Livioco,[37] cited in Goduco, we said:Since Livioco's property was acquired under RA 6657 and will be valued under RA 6657, the question regarding the 'time of taking' should follow the general rule in expropriation cases where the "time of taking" is the time when the State took possession of the same and deprived the landowner of the use and enjoyment of his property.[38]
	GR No. 182209 2012-10-03	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. EMILIANO R. SANTIAGO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Given that the only factor considered by the SAC in the determination of just compensation was the changing government support price for a cavan of palay, this Court is constrained to remand the case to the SAC Branch 29 for the reception of evidence and determination of just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657[64] and DAR AO No. 02-09 dated October 15, 2009, the latest DAR issuance on fixing just compensation.[65]
	GR No. 174007 2012-06-27	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MANOLO V. GODUCO PEREZ, J.
One final but important point: As we at the outset clarified, the repeated rulings that the land reform process is completed only upon payment of just compensation relate to the issue of the applicable law on just compensation. The disposition that the seizure of the landholding would take effect on the payment of just compensation since it is only at that point that the land reform process is completely refers to property acquired under P.D. No. 27 but which remained unpaid until the passage of R.A. 6657. We said that in such a situation R.A. 6657 is the applicable law. But if the seizure is during the effectivity of R.A. 6657, the time of taking should follow the general rule in expropriation cases where the "time of taking" is the time when the State took possession of the same and deprived the landowner of the use and enjoyment of his property xxx. We here repeat Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioco:[45]
	GR No. 178046 2012-06-13	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MONTINOLA-ESCARILLA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
For purposes of determining just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and price at the time of taking.[17] In the implementation of R.A. No. 6657, Section 17 provides the manner by which just compensation is determined, thus: Section 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 farmworkers 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.[18]
	GR No. 171101 2012-04-24	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioco, the Court held that "the 'time of taking' is the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to the Republic."[15] It should be noted, however, that "taking" does not only take place upon the issuance of title either in the name of the Republic or the beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). "Taking" also occurs when agricultural lands are voluntarily offered by a landowner and approved by PARC for CARP coverage through the stock distribution scheme, as in the instant case. Thus, HLI's submitting its SDP for approval is an acknowledgment on its part that the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita are covered by CARP. However, it was the PARC approval which should be considered as the effective date of "taking" as it was only during this time that the government officially confirmed the CARP coverage of these lands.
	GR No. 167735 2012-04-18	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF SALVADOR ENCINAS BRION, J.
The "taking of private lands under the agrarian reform program partakes of the nature of an expropriation proceeding."[35] In computing the just compensation for expropriation proceedings, the RTC should take into consideration the "value of the land at the time of the taking, not at the time of the rendition of judgment."[36] "The 'time of taking' is the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to the Republic."[37]
	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]

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ENRIQUE LIVIOCO