Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83226:57216&catid=1585&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:02:42+00:00

Document:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DIOSDADO STA. ROMANA AND RESURRECCION 0. RAMOS, REPRESENTED BY AURORA STA. ROMANA, PURIFICACION C. DAEZ, REPRESENTED BY EFREN D. VILLALUZ AND ROSAURO D. VILLALUZ, AND SPOUSES LEANDRO C. SEVILLA AND MILAGROS C. DAEZ, Respondents.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated March 27, 2008 and the Resolution3 dated June 12, 2008 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 93132 and 93240 which affirmed the Decision4 dated October 18, 2005 ofthe Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 33 (RTC) in AGR. Case No. 1163-G,5 fixing the just compensation for respondents’ 21.2192-hectare (ha.) land at P2,576,829.94 or P121,438.60/ha., and ordering the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to pay the said amount in the manner provided by law.
The motions for reconsideration filed by the DAR and the LBP were denied in a Resolution34 dated June 12, 2008, hence, the instant petition by the DAR which was subsequently consolidated35 with the LBP’s petition in G.R. Nos. 183298-99.
The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the subject land was properly valued in accordance with the factors set forth in Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended.
In a Resolution36 dated October 12, 2009, the parties were directed to file their respective memoranda. In lieu of a memorandum, however, the LBP filed a manifestation and motion37 (motion to withdraw and to remand) in G.R. Nos. 183298-99 (a) averring that the matter of computation of just compensation had been rendered moot and academic by the enactment of RA 9700,38 which ordains that when the valuation of previously acquired lands is challenged by the landowner, the same shall be completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended;39 and (b) praying that it be allowed to withdraw its petition and that the case be remanded to the RTC for re-computation of the just compensation of the subject land40 based on the factors set forth under Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, in relation to Section 541 of RA 9700.
The respondents in the said cases, who are the same respondents in the instant case, did not oppose the motion to withdraw and to remand, which the Court granted in a Resolution42 dated January 18, 2010. Neither did they file any motion for reconsideration therefrom.
On the other hand, the DAR filed a memorandum,43 praying for the adoption of the LBP valuation for the subject land, or in the alternative, for a similar remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings to determine the value of the land in accordance with existing provisions of law and applicable administrative issuances.
For purposes of determining just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking.46 In addition, the factors enumerated under Section 17 of RA 6657,47i.e., (a) the acquisition cost of the land, (b) the current value of like properties, (c) the nature and actual use of the property, and the income therefrom, (d) the owner's sworn valuation, (e) the tax declarations, (f) the assessment made by government assessors, (g) the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the government to the property, and (h) the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land, if any, must be equally considered.
The Court has gone over the records and observed that the only factors considered by the RTC in determining the just compensation for the subject land were (a) the acquisition price of a 5.5825-ha. landholding situated in the same locality paid to the owner on November 17, 1997,48 and (b) the market value of the subject land declared by the respondents, without a showing that the other factors under Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, were even taken into account or, otherwise, found to be inapplicable, contrary to what the law requires. Consequently, the CA erred in upholding the RTC’s valuation as having been made in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED insofar as it seeks to sustain the valuation of the 21.2192-hectare portion of respondents' property made by the Land Bank of the Philippines. The Decision dated March 27, 2008 and the Resolution dated June 12, 2008 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA­ G.R. SP Nos. 93132 and 93240 upholding the said valuation which did not consider the factors enumerated under Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Department of Agrarian Reform's petition stemming from AGR. Case No. 1163-G is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 33 for reception of evidence on the issue of just compensation in accordance with the guidelines set in this Decision. The trial court is directed to conduct the proceedings in said case with reasonable dispatch and to submit to the Court a report on its findings and recommended conclusions within sixty (60) days from notice of this Decision.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Peralta** and Perez, JJ., concur.
* The instant petition was consolidated with G.R. Nos. 183298-99 which, however, was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner in the said cases. See Resolutions dated September 29, 2008 and January 18, 2010; rollo (G.R. No. 183290), pp. 95 and 161.
** Designated Additional Member per Raffle dated December 9, 2013.
1Rollo (G.R. No. 183290), pp. 9-28.
2 Id. at 33-47. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) and Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok, concurring.
4Rollo (G.R. Nos. 183298-99), pp. 120-124. Penned by Judge Ismael P. Casabar.
5 SAC Case No. 1163-G in some parts of the records.
6Rollo (G.R. No. 183298-99), p. 120.
7 See rollo (G.R. No. 183290), pp. 34-35.
9Rollo (G.R. No. 183290), p. 34.
10 See LBP Claims Processing Form; id. at 112-115.
number of years from date of tenancy up to the effectivity date of DAR AO No. 13, series of 1994.
14Rollo (G.R. No. 183290), p. 35.
16Rollo (G.R. No. 183290), p. 36.
18Rollo (G.R. Nos. 183298-99), p. 121.
19Rollo (G.R. No. 183290), p. 37.
20Rollo (G.R. Nos. 183298-99), pp. 120-124.
22Rollo (G.R. Nos. 183298-99), pp. 122-123.
23 478 Phil. 701 (2004).
28 P52,360.00 market value per respondents’ tax declaration; id.
30Rollo (G.R. No. 183290), p. 40.
35 See Resolution dated September 29, 2008; id. at 95.
39Rollo (G.R. No. 183290), pp. 152-153 and 156.
42Rollo (G.R. No. 183290), p. 161.
44LBP v. Santiago, Jr., G.R. No. 182209, October 3, 2012, 682 SCRA 264, 277.
45LBP v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat, G..R. No. 175055, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 233, 243.
46LBP v. Livioco, G.R. No. 170685, September 22, 2010, 631 SCRA 86, 100.
47LBP v. Santiago, Jr., supra note 44, at 286.
48Rollo (G.R. Nos. 183298-99), pp. 121 and 124.
49LBP v. Livioco, supra note 46, at 112-113.
51 See Section 5 of RA 9700 which further amended Section 7 of RA 6657, as amended on the “Priorities” in the acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands.
53LBP v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat, supra note 45, at 248.
54Rollo (G.R. No. 183290), p. 9. The DAR’s motion for extension to file petition for review on certiorari (id. at 2-4) filed on July 1, 2008 was granted by the Court in the Resolution dated July 16, 2008 (id. at 7).
55LBP v. Livioco, supra note 46, at 116.
57LBP v. Santiago, Jr., supra note 44, at 282-283.
58 Rate of interest in the absence of stipulation; dated June 21, 2013.
59 See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.