Agrarian Law (Landbank vs. Alsua)

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
HEIRS OF JESUS ALSUA

G.R. No. 211351, February 04, 2015
Summary:
Alsua sold land to government in accordance with Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988. Landbank, PARAD, RTC and CA all came up with different
formula and values in computing for the just compensation. SC came up with
the proper valuation guidelines in determining just compensation.
Doctrine:
The Proper Valuation and Remand Guidelines:
i. Just compensation must be valued at the time of taking;
ii. The evidence must conform to Sec. 17 of RA 6657;
iii. RTC may impose interest on the just compensation as may be
warranted by the circumstances of the case;
iv. The RTC is advised that while it should be mindful of the different
formulae created by the DAR in arriving at just compensation, it is
not strictly bound to adhere thereto if the situations before it do not
warrant their application.
Facts:
Jesus Alsua owned a 62.11 has. parcel of unregistered agricultural land
situated in Pioduran, Albay. Respondents Heirs of Alsua voluntarily offered to
sell the entire parcel of land to the government under RA 6657. But only 47.45
has. thereof, consisting of 43.71 has. of coconut land and 3.73 has. of
unirrigated Riceland were acquired.
Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines valued the subject lands at
P1,369,702. While PARAD fixed the vale at P5,479,744. Landbank filed a
petition for determination of just compensation before the RTC. On the other
hand, respondents maintained the correctness of the PARAD’s valuation.
RTC rejected the valuation of both the Landbank and PARAD and fixed
the just compensation at P4,245,820. CA fixed it at P2,465,423, less the initial
valuation already paid in the amount of P1,369,708, plus legal interest at the
rate of 12%. It pointed out that the taking of lands under the agrarian reform
program partakes of the nature of an expropriation proceeding; thus, just
compensation should be pegged at the price or value of the property at the time
it was taken from the owner and not it’s rendition of judgment or the filing of
the complaint if the government partakes possession of the land before the
institution of expropriation proceedings.
Landbank filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
Issue:
Whether the CA committed any reversible error in fixing the just
compensation for the subject lands?
Ruling:
Yes. 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 the taking.
SC ruled that just compensation for the subject lands should be computed
based on the factors stated in Sec. 17 of RA 6657, as amended. The factors
enumerated must be equally considered are:
i. The acquisition cost of the land
ii. The current value of like properties
iii. The nature and actual use of the property and the income therefrom
iv. The owner’s sworn valuation
v. The tax declarations
vi. The assessment made by the government assessors
vii. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the
farmworkers, and by the government to the property
viii. The non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government
financing institution on the said land.
Analysis:
Both the RTC and the CA applied the provision of DAR AO No. 5 s, 1998
in computing the just compensation. It appears however, that both RTC and
CA made variations from the formula under the said AO.
The Court has pored over the records and observed that the only factors
considered by both courts in determining just compensation were (a) the
nature and actual use of property, and the income of therefrom, as well as (b)
the market value of the subject lands, without showing that the other factors
under Sec. 17 of RA 6657 were even taken into account or, otherwise, found to
be inapplicable, contrary to what the law requires.
The SC pronounced the Proper Valuation and Remand Guidelines:
i. Just compensation must be valued at the time of taking;
ii. The evidence must conform to Sec. 17 of RA 6657;
iii. RTC may impose interest on the just compensation as may be
warranted by the circumstances of the case;
iv. The RTC is advised that while it should be mindful of the different
formulae created by the DAR in arriving at just compensation, it is
not strictly bound to adhere thereto if the situations before it do not
warrant their application.
Conclusion:
Wherefore, the petition is denied insofar as it seeks to sustain the
valuation of the subject lands made by petitioner Landbank. The case is
remanded to the RTC for proper determination of just compensation in
accordance with the guidelines set by the SC.
Additional provisions:
 Sec. 2 of EO No. 228 states that the valuation of rice and corn lands covered
by P.D. No. 27 shall be based on the average gross production determined
by the Barangay Committee on Land Production in accordance with
Department Memorandum Circular No. 26, Series of 1973, and related
issuances and regulations of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
 Sec. 16 of RA 6657 states the procedure on how to acquire private lands:
(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.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal
delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative
shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within
thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the
government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of
title.
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary
administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land
requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit
evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from
the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is
deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30)
days after it is submitted for decision.
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of
rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an
accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP
bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of
the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The
DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified
beneficiaries.
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court
of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.

Agrarian Law (Landbank vs. Alsua)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agrarian Law (Landbank vs. Alsua)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

HEIRS OF JESUS ALSUA

 Sec. 16 of RA 6657 states the procedure on how to acquire private lands:

You might also like