Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82947:56835&catid=1582&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:24:54+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 182704, April 23, 2014 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. VICTORINO T. PERALTA, Respondent.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. VICTORINO T. PERALTA, Respondent.
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated July 5, 2007 and Resolution2 dated April 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Mindanao Station in CA–G.R. SP No. 00161. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision3 December 14, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Branch 9 in Civil Case No. 3015.
Victorino T. Peralta (respondent) is the registered owner of two parcels of agricultural land located at Sinangguyan, Don Carlos, Bukidnon covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P–96234 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T–10957.5 Of the total area of more than 8 hectares, 2.73 hectares were placed under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program and distributed to tenant–beneficiaries pursuant to Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27.
On October 17, 2000, respondent filed with the RTC, acting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC), a petition6 for judicial determination of just compensation for his landholding which he claimed was valued by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) at the price of only P17,240.00. Respondent alleged that based on his own investigation, the true valuation of lands sold within the vicinity is P200,000/ha. while the valuation made by petitioner as affirmed by the DARAB was fixed at only P6,315.02/ha., or 63 centavos per square meter which is highly unconscionable.
Petitioner filed its Answer7 stating that the subject land was valued wayback in 1981 as evidenced by the Landowner–Tenant Production Agreement (LTPA). It maintained that having agreed to the stipulated price in the LTPA, respondent had waived his claim for a higher compensation. Also, petitioner claimed that respondent’s cause of action has already prescribed under Article 1144 of the Civil Code.
In his Reply,8 respondent asserted that he had objected to petitioner’s valuation during the adjudication proceedings. As to the LTPA, respondent said he signed it merely for the purpose of terminating the collection of rentals from the tenant–beneficiaries. He insisted that there was no waiver of his right to be paid the just and equitable value of his landholding.
That the property is along the National Sayre Highway situated at barangay Sinangguyan, Don Carlos, Bukidnon one kilometer away more or less from Poblacion Norte, Don Carlos, Bukidnon.
That it has generally flat or plain terrain suitable for any uses like Agricultural, Residential, Commercial or Industrial.
This commissioner as chairman of the panel, after evaluating the reports of the commissioners of the plaintiff and the defendant and on the basis of his appreciation of the value of the property, taking into consideration its accessibility to the town proper, potentiality (ideal for residential use) productivity (planted to sugar cane which is a high–yielding crop), physical features (flat topography, well–drained and rich top soil) and the buying price of similar properties in the area (per interview conducted) is sustaining the value submitted by the plaintiff’s commissioner in the amount of P200,000.00 per hectare. As Municipal Assessor of the Municipality of Don Carlos, Bukidnon for many years, he has personal knowledge of the value of the properties in the area. The defendant’s commissioner is duty–bound to apply the valuation under Presidential Decree No. 27 because the property is covered under this program, even if the Decree was signed in 1972 at the advent of Martial Law by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, some 30 years ago.
Before the case was submitted for decision petitioner was allowed to present its two witnesses, after which it formally offered its documentary evidence. Respondent opted not to present any witness and neither did it submit documentary evidence.
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the amount of FOUR HUNDRED NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P409,500.00) PESOS as just compensation for the property of the plaintiff consisting of 2.7300 hectares portion of TCT No. T–10957 and OCT No. P–9623 in the name of petitioner Victorino T. Peralta located at Sinanguyan, Don Carlos, Bukidnon; ordering the defendant Land Bank of the Philippines to pay the said amount exclusive of the amounts of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) PESOS as attorney’s fee and TEN THOUSAND (P10,00).00) as cost of litigation, payable in cash and in bonds, pursuant to the mode of payment under the agrarian reform program.
Petitioner appealed to the CA arguing that respondent’s act of filing a petition for judicial determination of just compensation with the SAC was in repudiation of the LTPA executed more than 19 years ago. If indeed, respondent had a valid ground to repudiate the aforesaid agreement and being a written agreement, the same should have been done within ten years from its execution on September 15, 1981, pursuant to Article 1144 of the Civil Code. Petitioner reiterated that respondent’s suit is likewise barred on the ground that the period to elevate the matter of just compensation to the court from the DARAB had already lapsed. Not only did respondent fail to indicate in his complaint before the RTC his date of receipt of the DARAB decision, more than 30 days had already lapsed before he brought the action in court.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ITS DECISION AS IT HAD MANIFESTLY OVERLOOKED THEREIN RELEVANT FACTS WHICH WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
Petitioner faults the CA in failing to appreciate that the LTPA valuation was agreed upon between respondent and tenant–beneficiaries in September 1981, which valuation was confirmed and validated for payment by DAR and LBP in 1982. Since the amount of the agreed compensation has since then been made available to respondent, petitioner avers that no delay can be imputed to the government.
Additionally, petitioner points out that the DAR resolution sustaining the LTPA valuation was ipso facto rendered final and executory after the lapse of fifteen days from respondent’s notice thereof, without the matter of just compensation being elevated to the SAC pursuant to Section 51 in relation to Section 16(f) of R.A. No. 6657. The matter of valuation had thus become res judicata. It was only after 50 days from rendition of the DAR resolution and almost 20 years from execution of the LTPA, that respondent petitioned the SAC for determination of just compensation.
Under Section 1 (b), Rule II of the 1994 Rules of Procedure of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (1994 DARAB Rules), which is applicable in the present case, the DARAB is vested with primary and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the valuation of land and the preliminary determination and payment of just compensation, fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance compensation, amortization payments, and similar disputes concerning the functions of the LBP.
In Phil. Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals,19 we explained that the consequence of the said rule is that the adjudicator’s decision on land valuation attains finality after the lapse of the 15–day period. Republic v. Court of Appeals20 and subsequent cases21 clarified that the determination of the amount of just compensation by the DARAB is merely a preliminary administrative determination which is subject to challenge before the SACs which have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation under Section 57, R.A. No. 6657.
In the case at bar, the DAR Regional Adjudicator issued his resolution ordering the payment of P17,240.00 as just compensation for respondent’s landholding on August 23, 2000. While respondent did not indicate the date when he received a copy of the said resolution, the filing of the petition with the SAC was done only on October 17, 2000 or 55 days from the issuance of the DAR resolution. Nonetheless, such failure to comply with the 15–day period did not render the DAR valuation final and executory as to bar respondent’s action for judicial determination of just compensation. We note that even before the conduct of DAR proceedings and respondent’s filing of a petition with the SAC, R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as “The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988,” already took effect on June 15, 1988. Hence, the parties litigated on the issue of whether P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 288 or R.A. No. 6657 should apply in determining just compensation in this case.
The Court has, in several cases, for reason of equity, applied R.A. No. 6657 in determining just compensation for lands acquired under P.D. No. 27 and before the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657.
Land Bank’s contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on October 21, 1972, the time of the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just compensation should be based on the value of the property as of that time and not at the time of possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office of the President, Malacañang, Manila v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that the seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat,28 the same doctrine was applied where the Court noted that both the taking of the landowner’s property and the valuation occurred during the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657. Since the acquisition process under P.D. No. 27 remains incomplete and is overtaken by R.A. No. 6657, the process should be completed under R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 having suppletory effect only.29 Similarly, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Soriano,30 this Court held that Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 should be the principal basis of the computation for just compensation. While the lands involved therein were acquired under P.D. No. 27, the Court noted that the complaint for just compensation was only lodged before the court (SAC) on November 23, 2000 or long after the passage of R.A. No. 6657.
In sum, if the issue of just compensation is not settled prior to the passage of R.A. No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with the said law, although the property was acquired under P.D. No. 27.
Records confirm that petitioner had deposited its initial valuation in the amount of P17,240.00 on April 2, 1982 and the same had already earned interest, the total amount due plus increment is P73,604.95 as computed by LBP.31 Respondent protested this valuation even as he signed the LTPA for the benefit of the tenants–beneficiaries and considering that his land had been divided and distributed to the said farmers. Eventually, respondent challenged the valuation made by DAR in August 2000 which was still based on P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228, by filing a petition with the SAC for judicial determination of just compensation on October 17, 2000. Clearly, the agrarian reform process initiated under P.D. No. 27 remains incomplete when R.A. No. 6657 took effect on June 15, 1988.
LBP’s contention that the property was taken on 21 October 1972, the date of effectivity of PD 27, thus just compensation should be computed based on the GSP in 1972, is erroneous. The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the emancipation patents. An emancipation patent constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the grantee. It is from the issuance of an emancipation patent that the grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in the landholding, subject to the payment of just compensation to the landowner.
In DAR v. Tongson,35 we remanded the case back to the SAC for reception of evidence as to the date of the grant of the emancipation patents (EPs) which shall serve as the reckoning point for the computation of just compensation due respondent. The date of the issuance of EPs covering the subject lands have not been attached to the records of the case. Here, the records likewise failed to show the date when such EPs have been issued to the tenant–beneficiaries who signed the LTPA. Accordingly, the case should be remanded to the SAC for reception of evidence thereof.
Remand is also necessary for the reason that the SAC based its determination of just compensation solely on the opinion of the municipal assessor as to the current market value of respondent’s land which was not supported by any documentary evidence.
SEC. 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.
The above factors had already been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule–making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. Thus, the Court held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,36 that the formula outlined in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998 should be applied in computing just compensation.
The foregoing shows that the Section 17 referred to in Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9700 is the old Section 17 under Republic Act No. 6657, as amended; that is, prior to further amendment by Republic Act No. 9700. A reading of the provisions of Republic Act No. 9700 will readily show that the old provisions, under Republic Act No. 6657, are referred to as Sections under “Republic Act No. 6657, as amended,” as distinguished from “further amendments” under Republic Act No. 9700.
With respect to cases where the Master List of ARBs has been finalized on or before July 1, 2009 pursuant to Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 2003, the acquisition and distribution of landholdings shall continue to be processed under the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 9700.
Considering that respondent’s land had been previously acquired under P.D. No. 27 but the valuation has been the subject of his challenge before the SAC, the completion and final resolution of just compensation should therefore be computed in accordance with Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 9700.
Given the insufficient evidence for the determination of just compensation under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and applicable DAR regulations, and the absence of evidence in the records pertaining to the date of issuance of the EPs to the tenant–beneficiaries, we are constrained to remand this case to the SAC for reception of such and any other relevant evidence for a complete resolution of the issue of just compensation, consistent with our disquisitions.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 5, 2007 and Resolution dated April 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals Mindanao Station in CA–G.R. SP No. 00161 are hereby SET ASIDE. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Special Agrarian Court, Branch 9, of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, for further reception of evidence to determine just compensation strictly in accordance with Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, DAR AO No. 05, series of 1998 and applicable DAR regulations.
1Rollo, pp. 64–78. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Elihu A. Ybañez concurring.
2 Id. at 103–104. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Edgardo T. Lloren concurring.
3 Records, pp. 203–218. Penned by Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr.
11 Id. at 80, 82.
15 416 Phil. 473, 448 (2001).
16 497 Phil. 738, 746–747 (2005).
19 379 Phil. 141, 148–149 (2000).
20 331 Phil. 1070 (1996).
21 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay, 561 Phil. 711 (2007); Land Bank of the Philippines v. Martinez, 582 Phil. 739 (2008).
22 G.R. No. 184282, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 354, 362–363.
23 486 Phil. 366, 383–384 (2004).
24 Supra note 16, at 746.
26 567 Phil. 593, 608 (2008).
27 See Land Bank of the Philippines v. Santiago, Jr., G.R. No. 182209, October 3, 2012, 682 SCRA 264, 277.
28 G.R. No. 175055, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 233, 243.
29 See also Land Bank of the Philippines v. Vda. de Abello, 602 Phil. 710, 720 (2009) and Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 537 Phil. 571, 581–582 (2006).
30 G.R. Nos. 180772 and 180776, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 347, 353.
32 Supra note 26, at 608.
33 G.R. No. 167735, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 52.
34 Id. at 59–60, citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 171840, April 4, 2011, 647 SCRA 152, 169; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial, 544 Phil. 378, 388 (2007); Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, supra note 23; and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioco, G.R. No. 170685, September 22, 2010, 631 SCRA 86, 112–113.
35 G.R. No. 171674, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 181, 190–191.
36 515 Phil. 467, 478–479 (2006).
37 555 Phil. 831, 845 (2007).
38 588 Phil. 345, 353–354, 355 (2008).
39Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Yujuico, G.R. Nos. 184719 & 184720, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 710, 731.
40 Supra note 27, at 279.

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