Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83150:57179&catid=1585&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:33:22+00:00

Document:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Petitioner, v. SALUD GACIAS BERIÑA,1 CESAR GACIAS, NORMA GACIAS TANDOC,2 LYDIA LEANDER GACIAS, AND GREGORIO MEDEN GACIAS, Respondents.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SALUD GACIAS BERIÑA, CESAR GACIAS, NORMA GACIAS TANDOC, LYDIA LEANDER GACIAS, AND GREGORIO MEDEN GACIAS, Respondents.
Assailed in these consolidated3 petitions for review on certiorari4 are the Decision5 dated March 28, 2008 and the Resolution6 dated July 25, 2008 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 71533 which affirmed with modification the Decision7 dated November 6, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 52 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 98-6521, fixing the just compensation for respondents’ 8-hectare (ha.) land at ?735,562.05 and ordering the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to pay the said amount in the manner provided by law.
Respondents Salud G. Beriña (Salud), Cesar Gacias (Cesar), Norma G. Tandoc (Norma), Lydia Leander Gacias (Lydia), and Gregorio Meden Gacias (Meden) are among the eight (8) children of the late spouses Sabiniano and Margarita Gacias (Sps. Gacias),8 whose 12.6866 has.9 of riceland10 and 16.8080 has. of other agricultural lands,11 located in Barangays Carriedo and Buenavista, respectively, in Irosin, Sorsogon, were placed under the government’s Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program,12 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27,13 otherwise known as the “Tenants Emancipation Decree,” as amended.
It appears that the DAR had initially valued the 8-ha. portion of the aforesaid riceland (subject portion) at P77,000.0022 (DAR valuation), using the formula under Executive Order No. (EO) 22823 dated July 17, 1987, i.e., Land Value = Average Gross Product (AGP) x 2.5 x P35.00 x area. Under this formula, the government support price (GSP) for one (1) cavan of 50 kilos of palay was pegged at P35.00, which is the GSP set on the date of the effectivity of PD 27 on October 21, 1972.
Dissatisfied, the parties elevated the matter before the CA via an appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 71533.
In a Decision37 dated March 28, 2008, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision with the modification imposing legal interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the compensation award upon its finality until full payment.
The motions for reconsideration filed by the DAR and the LBP were denied in a Resolution40 dated July 25, 2008, hence, the instant consolidated petitions. Subsequently, the DAR filed manifestations41 adopting the LBP’s petition in G.R. No. 183931 as its petition in G.R. No. 183901.
The essential issues for the Court’s resolution are whether or not the CA committed reversible error in: (a) directing the LBP to pay the amount of P735,562.05 as just compensation for the subject portion despite the absence of the land transfer claim/claim folder for processing and payment; (b) affirming the RTC Decision doubling the AGP as a factor in the formula in computing the just compensation; and (c) imposing legal interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the compensation award from finality of the judgment until full payment.
The consolidated petitions are meritorious.
In the present case, the LBP avers that the DAR has not forwarded to it the corresponding claim folder which is purportedly a mandatory requirement in order that the payment for the acquired lands may be disbursed.48 Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that the subject portion had already been expropriated considering (a) the DAR’s admission that it had already valued the same under PD 27 and EO 228,49 and (b) the issuance of EPs and/or CLTs to some of the tenants-beneficiaries,50 thereby dispossessing the Gacias Heirs of their property without just compensation. Certainly, the Gacias Heirs’ entitlement to just compensation for the taking of their property cannot be disregarded by the mere absence of the claim folders asserted in this case, as otherwise, the Court would be abetting the perpetration of a grave injustice against them,51 occasioned by the undue delay and unjustified failure of the DAR to forward to the LBP the said folders even after the taking of the subject portion and the issuance of the EPs and/or CLTs to some of the tenants-beneficiaries.
While the LBP is charged54 with the initial responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under the land reform program and the compensation to be paid for their taking,55 guided by the records/ documents contained in the claim folders,56 it must be emphasized that its valuation is considered only as an initial determination, which is not conclusive. Verily, it is the Regional Trial Court, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, that should make the final determination of just compensation57 and which has the final say on what the amount of just compensation will be58 pursuant to the well-settled rule that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function.59 This rule notwithstanding, a review of the records, nonetheless, impels the Court to order the remand of the case to the RTC considering the failure of both the RTC and the CA to consider the factors enumerated under Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, in determining the just compensation for the subject portion.
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator.60 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.61 In addition, the factors enumerated under Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended,62i.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.
2. The evidence must conform with Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, prior to its amendment by RA 9700. It bears pointing out that while Congress passed RA 9700 on July 1, 2009, further amending certain provisions of RA 6657, as amended, among them, Section 17, and declaring “(t)hat all previously acquired lands wherein valuation is subject to challenge by landowners shall be completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of [RA 6657], as amended,”65 the law should not be retroactively applied to pending claims/cases.
WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are GRANTED. The Decision dated March 28, 2008 and the Resolution dated July 25, 2008 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71533 upholding the valuation of the 8-hectare portion of the riceland made by the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 52 which did not consider the factors enumerated under Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 98-6521 is thus REMANDED to the said trial court for reception of evidence on the issue of just compensation in accordance with the guidelines set in this Decision. It is further 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.
1 “Berina” in some parts of the records.
2 “Tandco” in some parts of the records.
3 See Resolution dated March 18, 2009; rollo (G.R. No. 183931), pp. 166-167.
4 Petition for Review on Certiorari of LBP (Rollo [G.R. No. 183931], pp. 15-44); See DAR’s Manifestation dated September 16, 2008 and December 12, 2008 (Rollo [G.R. No. 183901], pp. 8-10 and 18-20, respectively).
5Rollo (G.R. No. 183931), pp. 47-56. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Vicente S. E. Veloso, concurring.
7 Id. at 102-106. Penned by Judge Honesto A. Villamor.
10 Covered by five (5) Original Certificates of Title Nos. 16325, 14237, 18325, 18256, and 18374; id. at 20. See also id. at 104.
14 See rollo (G.R. No. 183931), pp. 81-83.
16 Id. at 84. Julia Galkan, Liberato Presado and Jose Presado in some parts of the recordS; id. at 102.
20 See id. at 83-84.
Transfers of ownership of lands covered by a Torrens Certificate of Title duly executed prior to October 21, 1972 but not registered with the Register of Deeds concerned before said date in accordance with the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) shall not be considered a valid transfer of ownership insofar as the tenant-farmers are concerned and therefore the land shall be placed under Operation Land Transfer.
22Rollo (G.R. No. 183931), p. 127.
24Rollo (G.R. No. 183931), p. 20.
41 Dated September 16, 2008 and December 12, 2008 (Rollo [G.R. No. 189301], pp. 8-10 and 18-20, respectively).
42LBP v. Santiago, Jr., G.R. No. 182209, October 3, 2012, 682 SCRA 264, 277.
44 See LBP v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat, G.R. No. 175055, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 233, 243.
45 478 Phil. 700 (2004).
(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.
47LBP v. Sps. Banal, supra note 45, at 708-709.
48Rollo (G.R. No. 183931), pp. 26-27.
51 See LBP v. Spouses Chico, 600 Phil. 272, 286-287 (2009).
53Rollo (G.R. No. 183931), p. 29. The said RTC Order, however, was not appended to either of the petitions.
54 Under EO 405, entitled “VESTING IN THE LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE LAND VALUATION AND COMPENSATION FOR ALL LANDS COVERED UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988.” Issued by former President Corazon C. Aquino on June 14, 1990.
56 See Operating Procedures under DAR Administrative Order No. 02-96 dated August 6, 1996, re: REVISED RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS SUBJECT OF VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL AND COMPULSORY ACQUISITION PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657.
57 See LBP v. Heir of Trinidad S. Vda. de Arieta, G.R. No. 161834, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 43, 66.
58LBP v. Escandor, G.R. No. 171685, October 11, 2010, 632 SCRA 504, 512.
59 See LBP v. Dumlao, 592 Phil. 486, 504 (2008).
60LBP v. Orilla, 578 Phil. 663, 676 (2008).
61 LBP v. Livioco, G.R. No. 170685, September 22, 2010, 631 SCRA 86, 100.
62 See LBP v. Santiago, Jr., supra note 42, at 275-276.
63LBP v. Livioco, supra note 61, at 112-113.
64 See id. at 114.
65 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.
66 See citation in LBP v. Livioco, supra note 61, at 107-108.
68 See LBP v. Santiago, Jr., supra note 42, at 282-283.
69 Rate of interest in the absence of stipulation; dated June 21, 2013.
70 See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 454-456.
71LBP v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat, supra note 44, at 250.
72 Id. at 250-251; citations omitted.

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