Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THE
PHILIPPINES
have the final say on what the amount of just compensation will be. Hence, we sustain the
computation reached by the trial court.
it is clear from 57 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine such cases is in
the
RTCs.
Any
effort
to
transfer
such jurisdiction
to the adjudicators
and to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate jurisdiction would be
contrary to 57 and therefore would be void.
What adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a preliminary manner the
reasonable compensation to be paid to landowners, leaving to the courts the ultimate power to
decide this question.
LBP vs Orilla
execution pending appeal
It was held that good reasons consist of compelling or superior circumstances demanding
urgency which will outweigh the injury or damages suffered should the losing party secure a
reversal of the judgment or final order. The existence of good reasons is what confers
discretionary power on a court to issue a writ of execution pending appeal. These reasons must
be stated in the order granting the same.
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner
by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court that the true measure is not
the takers gain but the owners loss. The word just is used to modify the meaning of the
word compensation to convey the idea that the equivalent to be given for the property to be
taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample.
Put differently, while prompt payment of just compensation requires the immediate deposit and
release to the landowner of the provisional compensation as determined by the DAR, it does not
end there. Verily, it also encompasses the payment in full of the just compensation to the
landholders as finally determined by the courts. Thus, it cannot be said that there is already
prompt payment of just compensation when there is only a partial payment thereof, as in this
case.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
[LBP], petitioner,
- versus The DAR's land valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final and conclusive upon
the landowner or any other interested party. In the exercise of their functions, the courts still
The courts cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided by the DAR
for the determination of just compensation.
[20]
In this case, the RTC adopted a different formula in determining land valuation by considering
the average between the findings of the DAR using the formula laid down in E.O. 228 and the
market value of the property as stated in the tax declaration. This is obviously a departure from
the mandate of the law and the DAR administrative order.
LBP vs colarina
Clearly from the foregoing, the valuation of the subject properties by petitioner was
based on data gathered by DAR and contained in its Field Investigation Report.
[21]
The data
correctly reflected actual use and produce of the subject properties and did not factor in
The above formula shall be used if all three factors are present,
relevant and applicable.
potential use as what respondents appraiser did. In fact, we note that the data obtained by
A1. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, the
formula shall be:
government valuation as unreliable without proffering evidence to support his statement. This
Oliva was based on his unofficial surveys of farmers and Chinese traders. Oliva readily dismisses
explains the big discrepancy in Olivas Appraisal Report and petitioners valuation.
regardless of Olivas unschooled opinion. Considering respondents belief that the properties
are worth more than the
valuation made by the DAR, he can proceed to develop the land excluded by the DAR
from expropriation into its potential use as assessed by Oliva.
LBP vs escandor
In view of the foregoing rulings, we hold that both the SAC and the CA erred in not strictly observing
the guidelines provided in Section 17 of RA No. 6657 and adopting DAR administrative orders
implementing the same, specifically AO No. 5, series of 1998 which took effect on May 11, 1998 and
thus already in force at the time of the filing of the complaints.
[28]
we held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim that Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR AO No. 6,
[29]
series of 1992, are mandatory and not mere guides that the RTC may disregard. We have stressed
that the special agrarian court cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula
provided by the DAR for the determination of just compensation. This Court thus rejected the
valuation fixed by the RTC because it failed to follow the DAR formula. There is no delay that would
justify the payment of interest since the just compensation due to respondent has been
promptly and validly deposited in her name in cash and LBP bonds.
LBP vs pascual
Issue: Whether or not the LBP can refuse to pay the landowner of the value of just
compensation.
Held: Once the Land Bank agrees with the appraisal of the DAR, which bears the approval of the
landowner, it becomes its legal duty to finance the transaction. In the instant case,
petitioner participated in the valuation proceedings held in the office of the PARAD through its
counsel,Atty. Eduard Javier. It did not appeal the decision of PARAD which became final and
executory. As a matter of fact, petitioner even stated in its Petition that it is willing to pay the
value determined by the PARAD provided that the farmer beneficiaries concur thereto. These
facts sufficiently prove that petitioner LBP agreed with the valuation of the land. The only thing
that hindered it from paying the amount was the non-concurrence of the farmer-beneficiary.
But as we have already stated, there is no need for such concurrence. Without such obstacle,
petitioner can now be compelled to perform its legal duty through the issuance of a writ of
mandamus.