The Provincial Agrarian Reform Office informed the Mercado spouses that 5.2624 hectares of their property would be subject to land reform and offered ₱287,227.16 as just compensation. The spouses contested the valuation. The RTC ruled in their favor and set compensation at ₱25.0/sqm but the CA reversed, saying the RTC must use the formula in DAR A.O. No. 5. The Supreme Court held that just compensation must be determined pursuant to the guidelines in the law and DAR order. It remanded the case to have the RTC receive evidence and determine compensation in accordance with the legal factors and formula.
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Office informed the Mercado spouses that 5.2624 hectares of their property would be subject to land reform and offered ₱287,227.16 as just compensation. The spouses contested the valuation. The RTC ruled in their favor and set compensation at ₱25.0/sqm but the CA reversed, saying the RTC must use the formula in DAR A.O. No. 5. The Supreme Court held that just compensation must be determined pursuant to the guidelines in the law and DAR order. It remanded the case to have the RTC receive evidence and determine compensation in accordance with the legal factors and formula.
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Office informed the Mercado spouses that 5.2624 hectares of their property would be subject to land reform and offered ₱287,227.16 as just compensation. The spouses contested the valuation. The RTC ruled in their favor and set compensation at ₱25.0/sqm but the CA reversed, saying the RTC must use the formula in DAR A.O. No. 5. The Supreme Court held that just compensation must be determined pursuant to the guidelines in the law and DAR order. It remanded the case to have the RTC receive evidence and determine compensation in accordance with the legal factors and formula.
GRN 196707, June 17, 2015 Second Division; J. Del Castillo Facts: The Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) informed petitioners spouses Mercado that 5.2624 hectares of their property shall be placed under CARP, for which they were offered 287,227.16 as just compensation. Petitioners contested the valuation. They claimed that they just sold a piece of that property, which was the hilly and uncultivated portion at 25.0/sqm; their property is flat, easy to cultivate, and is near an ecotourism area. When it reached the RTC-SAC, the court ruled for petitioners and fixed the just compensation at 25.0/sqm. The CA reversed the RTC-SAC. The appellate court said that that the RTC-SAC must mandatorily apply the formula in DAR A.O. No. 5. If so applied, the valuation by respondent bank at 287,227.16 would be correct. Issue: How is just compensation computed? Held: Just compensation must be arrived at pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Section 17 of RA 6657 and outlined in a formula provided in DAR A.O. No. 5. If the RTC finds these guidelines inapplicable, it must clearly explain the reasons for deviating therefrom and for using other factors or formula in arriving at the reasonable just compensation for the property expropriated. As provided: SECTION 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of the 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. On the other hand, the formula under DAR A.O. No. 5 reads:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
Where: LV = Land Value CNI = Capitalized Net Income CS = Comparable Sales MV = Market Value per In this case, the RTC did not state the basis for arriving at 25.0/sqm valuation. The CA merely took into account the production or income of the property without looking at other factors. Thus, the case must be remanded in the RTC for reception of evidence to make a determination of just compensation.