CHAPTER V – LAND ACQUISITION
SECTION 17 (FACTORS) 1) Cost of Acquisition
2) Current Value of like properties
Proof of this could be a deed of sale but please take note that if you are a landowner, you cannot simply present
any deed of sale. It should be the recorded deed of sale. It is one that is bared with stamp by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
3) Actual use and income and nature
It can be proven also by zoning, inspection or testimony of the appraiser
4. Sworn valuation by owner 5. Tax Declaration
6. Assessment made by Government assessors.
The last three can found in the tax declaration itself.
So the assessed value made by the landowner. It is the part where some landowners will not state the true value of the property because they do not want to pay higher real property taxes.
Opinion of Atty:
Why CARL should be the governing law in computing just compensation?
1) PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration;
RA 6657: several factors for consideration in determining just compensation.
2) RA 6657 for lands covered by PD 27 and just compensation has not been determined at the time of passage of RA 6657 applies because PD 27 and EO 228 have onlt suppletory effect.
In fact in the amendment in the RA 9700, the crop harvest was included as an additional factors.
Amendment of Section 17 (RA9700):
- Two additional factors were added o The value of the standing crop o 70% of the zonal valuation of the BIR
Spouse Lee vs LBP
In this case, there was admission by the party that the valuation was not based on the factors. So the valuation was not valid because it was not based on the factors. So normally the court will remand the case to the RTC for further reception of evidence
LBP vs Heirs of Cruz
Decision of PARAD point to no evidence. So naay valuation, but it was not mentioned in the decision what was the evidence relied upon in coming up with the valuation. So it was invalid.
If valuation is not based on any evidence, it is without basis, so determination be remanded.
It was remanded to the trial court
LBP v Jocson and Sons
- About the date of taking as compared to Dumlao case.
- “Seizure of the land holding did not take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27. LBP would normally argue that the date of taking should be reckoned October 21, 1972.
SC said NO! It is on the payment of just compensation.
University of San Carlos EH408 (2016)
ATTY: But it is difficult considering that the decision can still be appealed. And the payment can still not happen because there was an appeal.
**Remember the decision is subject of an appeal.
LBP vs Livioco
The land is agricultural but the landowner tried to prove that the land is now residential. He submitted different evidence like certification form the MPD and others. But none of the plans was approved. Based on these evidence SC ruled that they cannot accept those evidences because the land was classified as agricultural but you did not present a conversion clearance approval coming from DAR. The land owner should have presented this. The best way to value the property is to classify it as agricultural and if there are improvements then you include those improvements as part of the factors to be able to be included in actual valuation.
Respondent's evidence of the value of his land as residential property (which the lower courts found to be preponderant) could, at most, refer to the potential use of the property. While the potential use of an expropriated property is sometimes considered in cases where there is a great improvement in the general vicinity of the expropriated property, it should never control the determination of just compensation (which appears to be what the lower courts have erroneously done). The potential use of a property should not be the principal criterion for determining just compensation for this will be contrary to the well-settled doctrine that the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking, not its potential uses. If at all, the potential use of the property or its "adaptability for conversion in the future is a factor, not the ultimate in determining just compensation."
The proper approach should have been to value respondent's property as an agricultural land, which value may be adjusted in light of the improvements in the Municipality of Mabalacat. This is because the farmer beneficiaries are made to pay for lands valued as residential.
LBP vs Honeycomb
HELD: We reiterated the mandatory application of the formula in the applicable DAR administrative regulations in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim, 24 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz, 25 and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido. 26 In Barrido, we were explicit in stating that: While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court, the judge cannot abuse his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules. Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula laid down in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply it. The courts cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided by the DAR for the determination of just compensation.
RTC based it valuation when it took judicial notice that a portion of the land is commercial land, just a few kilometers away from a commercial district. It is not right of the RTC to base it in their observation by taking judicial notice. SC ruled that you CANNOT RELY BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATION, you should follow the factors. CA which affirmed the RTC’s decision acted in grave error when they were not able to come up with their own basis for the valuation of the subject land.
LBP vs. Yatco
There is RTC STC where the determination of the just compensation was the issue. There are two branches here: Branch 35 and Branch 36. In these two braches there was a determination of Just compensation. RTC STC got the valuation of the two branches and use it as the basis in the case involving agrarian reform. It did not consider the market value of the land, the formula because it simply rely on the valuation of the two branches. SC distinguished the difference of the expropriation of the agra and the NAPOCOR.
SC says that these are two different entities, their objective is different. It is not wrong to rely on the valuation of another court FOR AS LONG AS the RTC-STC CAN JUSTIFY SUCH VALUATION BASED ON THE REQUISITES and not mere reliance without explaining and considering the factors.
QUERY: Whether prior reports to DARAB is necessary before determination of just compensation can be filed.
ANSWER: NO. There are two grounds and under sec. 57 RTC-SEC has original and exclusive jurisdiction.
There are cases where owner file petitions in PARAD, if there is adverse decision it will not elevate to DARAB, you can go directly to RTC and there is no such thing as appeal from DARAB to RTC because they are the same level.
LBP vs. Nable
The court mention about the farming experience and method of conversion test but did not discuss it. This test would actually prove the nature and the actual use of the income of the landowner. Even we don’t find this test in Sec. 17, DARAB was not mean that it was omitted.
You can conclude that the farmers have this way of computing how many sacks of crops can we harvest.
August 3, 2016 22-33 minutes
LBP v. Nable SC:
Court finds nothing objectionable or irregular in the use by the RTC of the assailed the farming experience and the thumb method of conversion tests. Such test are not inconsistent or incompatible with the factors listed in Section 17 of the RA 6657
Although Section 17 of the RA 6657 has not explicitly mentioned the farming experience and the thumb method of conversion as methods in the determination of just
compensation, LBO cannot deny that such methods were direcly relevant to the factors listed in Section 17, particularly those on the nature, actual use and income of the landholding.
Atty Comment:
The farmers there has their own way of computing the compensation like “How many sacks to be produced out of the entire hectare?” that is farming experience. That was declared by the court as relevant.
Valuation and payment (Section 18)
LBP v. PARAB
University of San Carlos EH408 (2016)
Issue:
If there is still a case pending on appeal, can the landowner withdraw any amount deposited to the government with the bank?
SC:
The court answered in affirmative. If you deny the landowners opportunity to withdraw the amount already deposited then that is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain.
Atty Comment:
While the case is pending in RTC, the landowner can withdraw the amount. Is it possible that there is a double compensation? Well, that is the responsibility of landbank. If the amount is withdrawn then Landbank should attest in court that the landowner has already withdrawn the amount. So that the withdrawn amount can already be deducted to the award to be given to the landowner.
Heirs of Lorenzo v. LBP
Facts:
The petitioners challenged the personality of LBP. They argues that Landbank cannot file a case of just compensation without DAR.
Issue:
What is the personality of Landbank in a case of determination of just compensation.
SC:
Section 18. clearly states there has to be consensus between the landowner, DAR and LBP. LBP is not a nominal party in the determination of just compensation thus LBP can act independently of DAR.
Atty Comments:
You would note that there are several cases in which the party to a case is Landbank and only Landbank, without DAR.
DAR v. Heirs of Domingo
SC:
Just compensation should be full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.
Atty Comment:
This is a case in which the SC justified why it is CARL in the determination of just compensation. For land acquired, PD 27. However the just compensation was not settled. It ruled however that it is inequitable. But why? The Supreme court did not elaborate. The meaning of just compensation.
Content and Manner (Section 18)
Sec. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stocks, tax credits or LBP bond
Is this a violation of usual way of payment in cash?
o No, because “revolutionary kind”.
Parties (Sec. 18)
Who are the parties in a case of just compensation?
LBP v. CA
It is DAR, Landowner and LBP. The law does not mention the participation of farmer-beneficiary
Atty Comment:
You would not here “consent of farmer-beneficiary is not required in establishing proper compensation.”
Payment if Interest
Apo Fruits v. CA
Facts:
RTC rendered a judgement ordering LBO/DAR to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above-fixed amount from the time the complaint was filed until the finality of this decision. After the decision becomes final and executory, the rate of 12% per annum shall be additionally imposed on the total obligation until payment thereof is satisfied. CA nullified the RTC order.
SC:
The interest is to be imposed on the just compensation only in case of delay in its payment, which facts must be sufficiently
established.
Aug 3. Last 11 min.
“Si sir nag teach daw transpo”
-in so far as agra is concerned, the government is supposed to pay money to the land owner, that is forbearance of money
University of San Carlos EH408 (2016)
-once there is already a final decision, the obligation becomes a forbearance of money
-the reckoning point of interest as a form of damages is from the time of demand until finality of the decision (decision will become final after the lapse of the reglementary period, no party appealed to the decision) -once the decision has become final and executory, there is again an interest on a forbearance of money which is to be computed from finality until payment.
-rate is the same-12%
Apo Fruits corp. vs CA Facts:
On October 12, 1995, AFC and HPI voluntarily offered to sell the lands subject of this case pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, or CARL). The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) referred their voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) applications to Land Bank for initial valuation. LandBank fixed the just compensation at P165,484.47/hectare, that is, P86,900,925.88, for AFC, and P164,478,178.14, for HPI. The valuation was rejected, however, prompting Land Bank, upon the advice of DAR, to open deposit accounts in the names of the petitioners, and to credit in said accounts the sums of P26,409,549.86 (AFC) and P45,481,706.76 (HPI). Both petitioners withdrew the amounts in cash from the accounts, but afterwards, on February 14, 1997, they filed separate complaints for determination of just compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
When DARAB did not act on their complaints for determination of just compensation after more than three years, the petitioners filed complaints for determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tagum
City, Branch 2, acting as a special agrarian court (SAC), docketed as Agrarian Cases No. 54-2000 and No. 55-2000. Summonses were served on May 23, 2000 to Land Bank and DAR, which respectively filed their answers on July 26, 2000 and August 18, 2000. The RTC conducted a pre-trial, and appointed persons it considered competent, qualified and disinterested as commissioners to determine the proper valuation of the properties.
The RTC rendered its decision:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru its Land Valuation Office, to pay jointly and severally the Commissioners' fees herein taxed as part of the costs pursuant to Section 12, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, equivalent to, and computed at Two and One-Half (2 1/2) percent of the determined and fixed amount as the fair, reasonable and just compensation of plaintiffs' land and standing crops plus interest equivalent to the interest of the 91-Day Treasury Bills from date of taking until full payment;
ISSUE:
Whether or not the interest was validly imposed.
HELD:
a notice of appeal; and that Land Bank filed in March 2003 its petition for certiorari in the CA only because the RTC did not give due course to its appeal. Any intervening delay thereby entailed could not be attributed to Land Bank, however, considering that assailing an erroneous order before a higher court is a remedy afforded by law to every losing party, who cannot thus be considered to act in bad faith or in an unreasonable manner as to make such party guilty of unjustified delay. As stated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Kumassie Plantation:
The mere fact that LBP appealed the decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals does not mean that it deliberately delayed the payment of just compensation to KPCI. It may disagree with DAR and the landowner as to the amount of just compensation to be paid to the latter and may also disagree with them and bring the matter to court for judicial determination. This makes LBP an indispensable party in cases involving just compensation for lands taken under the Agrarian Reform Program, with a right to appeal decisions in such cases that are unfavorable to it. Having only exercised its right to appeal in this case, LBP cannot be penalized by making it pay for interest.
It is explicit from LBP v. Wycoco that interest on the just compensation is imposed only in case of delay in the payment thereof which must be sufficiently established. Given the foregoing, we find that the imposition of interest on the award of just compensation is not justified and should therefore be deleted.
It must be emphasized that "pertinent amounts were deposited in favor of AFC and HPI within fourteen months after the filing by the latter of the Complaint for determination of just compensation before the RTC".
It is likewise true that AFC and HPI already collected P149.6 and P262 million, respectively, representing just compensation for the subject properties. Clearly, there is no unreasonable delay in the payment of just compensation which should warrant the award of 12% interest per annum in AFC and HPI's favor.
LBP vs Rivera Facts:
The respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land embraced by Original Certificate of Title No. P-082, and later transferred in their names under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-95690 that was placed under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 in 1972. Only 18.8704 hectares of the total area of 20.5254 hectares were subject of the coverage. After the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) directed payment, LBP approved the payment of P265, 494.20, exclusive of the advance payments made in the form of lease rental amounting to P75,415.88 but inclusive of 6% increment of P191,876.99 pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1994.
On 1 December 1994, the respondents instituted Civil Case No. 94-03 for determination and payment of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court.
LBP filed its answer, stating that rice and corn lands placed under the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 27 7 were governed and valued in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No. 228 8 as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1987 and other statutes and administrative issuances; that the administrative valuation of lands covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 rested solely in DAR and LBP was the only financing arm; that the funds that LBP would use to pay compensation were public funds to be disbursed only in accordance with existing laws and regulations; that the supporting documents were not yet received by LBP; and that the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 was already settled.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals, we affirmed the award of 12% interest on just compensation due to the landowner. The court decreed: The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition or the fair value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, if fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. Thus, if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the final
University of San Carlos EH408 (2016)
compensation must include interest on its just value to be
compensation must include interest on its just value to be