Agrarian Law - Case Digests 083113

IVY B.
LUBIANO, LAW 2 - Section A Row 2, Column 5 31, 2013 AGRARIAN LAW CASE DIGESTS
August
CASE NO. 1 LBP V. SPOUSES ROSA AND PEDRO COSTO, G.R. NO. 174647, December 5, 2012 A. CASE FACTS
Spouses Rosa and Pedro Costo are registered owners of a parcel of land in Catamlangan, Pilar, Sorsogon, with an area of 9.1936 hectares covered by OCT P-6487. After the passage of R.A. 6657, they voluntarily offered said property to the DAR. Out of the total area, 7.3471 has. was declared qualified. The LBP computed the value of the land for the total amount of P104,077.01, which the respondents rejected. LBP then deposited the offer in the form of cash and bonds in favor of respondents as provisional compensation. Respondents sought the determination of just compensation with the PARAD, who rendered a decision on July 30, 2002 and valued the property at P468,575.92. LBP filed motion for reconsideration but this was denied. LBP then filed petition for determination of just compensation with the RTC Special Agrarian Court (SAC), which in June 28, 2005 affirmed the decision of the PARAD. LBP then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in July 14, 2006 affirmed the decision of the RTC SAC. B. ISSUE
Whether or not the PARAD, RTC SAC and the CA disregarded and did not follow the valuation factors under Section 17 of R.A. 6657 as translated into a basic formula in DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998, in fixing the just compensation of the subject property. C. RULINGS
The PARAD, RTC SAC and the CA properly followed the valuation factors under Section 17 of R.A. 6657, namely: 1) acquisition cost of the land,
IVY B. LUBIANO, LAW 2 - Section A Row 2, Column 5 31, 2013 AGRARIAN LAW CASE DIGESTS
August
2) current value of the property, 3) its nature, actual use and income, 4) sworn statement by the owner, 5) tax declaration, 6) assessment made by government assessor, 7) social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers, farmworkers, and the government to the property, and 8) non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on said land, if any. These factors have already been incorporated into the DAR formula, and by applying said formula, the fixed value of the property of P468,575.92 was correct. The final determination of just compensation now rests with the courts, while that of administrative bodies are merely recommendatory. D. DECISION
The Court denied LBPs petition and affirmed the resolution of the Court of Appeals.
August
CASE NO. 2 LEBRUDO V. LOYOLA, G.R. NO. 181370, March 9, 2010 A. CASE FACTS
Petitioner Julian Lebrudo (deceased), represented by his son Reynaldo, assails the resolution dated January 4, 2008 and decision dated August 17, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in G.R. S.P. No. 90048, through a petition for review on certiorari submitted to the Supreme Court. Lebrudo alleges that respondent Remedios Loyola, who owns a 240 square meter parcel of land (Lot No. 723-6, Block 1, Psd-73149) in Brgy. Milagrosa, Carmona, Cavite under CLOA No. 20210 dated December 27, 1990 and TCT/CLOA No. 998 registered on March 14, 1991, should be disqualified as beneficiary thereto, that the TCT be cancelled, and the DAR to award and give him (Lebrudo) title over one-half of the lot by virtue of two Sinumpaang Salaysay allegedly executed by Loyola in his favor on December 28, 1989 and December 3, 1992. Petitioner alleges that said lot was committed to him by Loyola after he redeemed the same from the mortgage constituted by Loyolas mother, Cristina Hugo, to Trinidad Barreto, and after he shouldered all expenses in transferring title of the same from Cristina Hugo to his daughter Remedios. Loyola refused to comply with her alleged promise and Lebrudo filed an action with the PARAD of Trece Martires which granted his petition. Loyola appealed to the DARAB which reversed the judgment and set it aside, while denying Lebrudos motion for reconsideration for the same. Lebrudo appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision of the DARAB.
August
B.
ISSUE
Whether or not Julian Lebrudo is entitled to the one-half portion of the lot under the provisions of R.A. 6657 on the basis of the waiver and transfer of rights in the two Sinumpaang Salaysay dated December 28, 1989 and December 3, 1992 allegedly executed by Remedios Loyola in his favor. C. RULING
No, Julian Lebrudo is not entitled to the one-half portion of the lot because according to Section 27 of R.A. 6657, lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or the LBP, or other qualified beneficiaries for a period of 10 years Lebrudo does not belong to any of the above qualifications. Also, DAR Admin Order No. 3, series of 1990 enumerated the qualifications of a CARP beneficiary as: 1. landless 2. Filipino citizen 3. actual occupant/tiller who is at least 15 years old or head of the family at the time of filing the application, and 4. has the willingness, ability and aptitude to cultivate and make the land productive. Lebrudo also does not qualify under above 1 and 3 classifications because he already has a homelot awarded by DAR in February 28, 1996 with 236 square meters area and he is not an actual occupant of the land in litigation. The Sinumpaang Salaysays were also deemed illegal. D. DECISION
The Court denied Lebrudos petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
August
CASE NO. 3 LBP V. HONEYCOMB FARMS, G.R. NO. 166259, November 11, 2012 A. CASE FACTS
Respondent Honeycomb Farms, Inc. was the registered owner of a parcel of land under TCT No. T-2550 with an area of 29.0966 hectares in Curvada, Caintagan, Masbate. On February 5, 1998, through a letter to the DAR, HFI voluntarily offered the land for coverage under R.A. 6657 for P581,932 or P20,000 per hectare. Pursuant to the CARL, the government determined the acquirable and compensable area to be 27.5781 has. Using the guidelines in DAR Admin Order No. 6, series of 1992, the LBP fixed the value of the land at P165,739.44 and sent notice to inform HFI. HFI rejected LBPs valuation and filed on January 15, 1996 a petition with the DARAB for summary administrative determination of just compensation, indicating the value of the land to be P25,000 per hectare or a total of P725,000. While the DARAB proceedings were pending, HFI filed a complaint for determination and payment of just compensation with the RTC SAC. The LBP said that such action was premature and that HFI failed to exhaust all administrative remedies. The DARAB affirmed LBPs valuation, while the RTC SAC on the other hand, rendered judgment valuing the land at P931,109.20 or P32,000 per hectare. Both HFI and LBP appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC judgment and dismissed HFIs complaint for failure to exhaust all administrative remedies. However, the CA stated that the RTC SAC valuation was based on evidence. B. 1) ISSUES Whether or not the RTC SAC had jurisdiction over HFIs complaint.
August
2) 3)
Whether or not HFI failed to exhaust administrative remedies and engaged in forum shopping. Whether or not the CA also applied the basic formula in DAR Admin Order No. 6, series of 1992. RULINGS The RTC SAC has jurisdiction because the determination of just compensation is judicial in nature, hence it is not within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. HFI is not guilty of forum shopping because of the 3 elements of litis pendentia (i.e., 1) identity of the parties, 2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and 3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata in the other case), only 2 (particularly 1) and 2)) are present, but the third element is lacking. The RTC SAC must take into consideration the factors in Section 17 of R.A. 6657 in the application of the DAR formula. DECISION
C. 1) 2)
3)
D.
The Court reversed the resolution of the Court of Appeals and set it aside. The special civil case is remanded to the RTC SAC of Masbate (Branch 48) for determination of just compensation based on Section 17 of R.A. 6657 and the DAR Administrative Orders.
August
CASE NO. 4 LBP V. LIVIOCO, G.R. NO. 170685, September 22, 2010 A. CASE FACTS
Sometime between 1987 and 1988 Enrique Livioco offered his sugarland to DAR under CARP at P30.00 per square meter for a total of P9,189,870.00 of 30.6329 hectares. The DAR referred the offer to the LBP for valuation. The LBP set the price at P3.21 per square meter of 26 hectares. Livioco was informed of such valuation and that the cash portion of the claim has been deposited in trust pending his submission of ownership documentary requirements. Livioco did not act upon it. On September 20, 1991 the LBP issued certification to the Register of Deeds of Pampanga that it has earmarked the amount of P827,943.48 as compensation for Liviocos 26 hectares. In 1993 Livioco requested for reevaluation of the compensation on the ground of appreciation in value from the time it was first offered for sale and that the land had been changed from agricultural to residential. This was denied by the DAR on the ground that there was already a perfected sale. DAR proceeded to take possession thereof and in 1994 awarded CLOAs to 26 qualified farmer-beneficiaries. Livioco filed separate complaints to cancel the CLOAs and recover the property but it was denied, which denial was sustained by the Court of Appeals. Livioco filed in 1998 a petition for reconveyance before the DAR regional office, but this was dismissed on appeal at the Court of Appeals. Livioco also filed petition for judicial determination before the RTC of Angeles City, Pampanga, on December 18, 2001 where he presented evidences of his claim of appreciation in value and change in nature of the land. The LBP insisted on the validity and reasonability of its valuation.
August
The RTC ruled in favor of Livioco, and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. B. ISSUE
Whether or not the compensation for Liviocos property was determined in accordance with law. C. RULING
The lower court erred in ruling that the character of the property was now residential. Also, the lower court did not consider the character, price and time of the actual taking of the property. The proper consideration should have been that the land is agricultural but the value to be adjusted in light of improvements in Mabalacat. The lower court also erred in considering the Mt. Pinatubo eruption as causing the change in character of the land. Section 17 of R.A. 6657 on the Determination of Just Compensation must be strictly adhered to regarding the factors to be considered in the proper valuation of Liviocos land. Liviocos party filed to consider all factors in Section 17, while the LBP valuation on the other hand, lacks proper substantiation. D. DECISION
The Court denied LBPs petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and Civil Case No. 10405, remanding the same to Branch 56 of RTC of Angeles City, to determine just compensation in accordance with the law and its implementing rules and guidelines.
August
CASE NO. 5 ATLAS FERTILIZER CORP. V. DAR SECRETARY, G.R. NO. 93100, June 19, 1997 A. CASE FACTS
Petitioner Atlas Fertilizer Corp. questions the constitutionality of some portions of R.A. 6657, particularly: 1. Section 3(b), 11, 13, 16(d), 17 & 32, regarding the extension of agrarian reform to aquacultural lands, even as Section 4 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution only refers to agricultural lands; 2. why the law treats agricultural lands and aquacultural lands as the same in its coverage when in fact they are different; 3. the distortion that would result in the employment benefits and burdens of aquaculture employees and other industrial workers, in violation of Sections 1 and 3, Article XIII of the 1987 constitution; and 4. the deprivation of government-induced incentives to aquaculture industries. B. ISSUE
Whether or not sections 3(b), 11, 13, 16(d), 17 and 32 of R.A. 6657 are constitutional. C. RULING
The Court cited the decision in the Luz Farms case, which excluded lands devoted to poultry and livestock from the meaning of agricultural lands. A subsequent law, R.A. 7881 enacted on February 20, 1995, amended these sections and excluded other lands except agricultural lands from the coverage of the CARP, while adding Section 32-A in R.A. 6657 to include an incentive plan for those individuals or entities owning or operating fish ponds and prawn farms. D. DECISION
The petition was dismissed for being moot and academic, since all assailed issues have already been amended and provided for in R.A. 7881.
August
CASE NO. 6 NATALIA REALTY V. DAR, G.R. NO. 103302, August 12, 1993 A. CASE FACTS
Petitioner Natalia Realty is the owner of three (3) contiguous parcels of land in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal with areas of 120.9793 has., 1.3205 has., and 2.7080 has, respectively. These were embraced in TCT No. 31527 which were included in the 20,312 hectares of land declared under Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 dated April 18, 1979 as townsite reservation. Natalia obtained permits for the clearance and development first in 1982, then in 1983, and finally in 1986. On November 22, 1990, the DAR MARO issued Notices of Coverage which included 90.3307 hectares of the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision (the Natalia Realty lots), for which Natalia immediately registered objection. It was denied by the MARO. Natalia elevated its cause to the DARAB, which remanded the case to the Regional Adjudication. No action was since taken by the DAR Secretary or Director, even when Natalia wrote the Secretary reiterating its request to set aside the Notice of Coverage which included the Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Respondent DAR alleged that the permits to Natalia Realty were not valid and binding since these do not comply with the implementing standards, rules and regulations of P.D. 957 or the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree. B. ISSUE
Whether or not (undeveloped) lands already classified as residential, commercial or industrial prior to the effective of the CARP in June 15, 1988, are covered by R.A. 6657.
August
C.
RULING
The Court ruled that such lands are excluded. Furthermore, the petitioner complied with all necessary requirements under P.D. 657. The undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision are not anymore agricultural lands upon the approval of its inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Development Corporation (the agency tasked to oversee the implementation of the development of the townsite reservation, before Natalia Realty applied for the necessary permits from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission), under Presidential Proclamation No. 1637. The undeveloped state of the land may have been due to the enormity of resources needed for development, but may not be construed as their being an intent on the part of the owners to revert the same to agricultural lands. D. DECISION
The petition of Natalia Realty was granted, and the Notice of Coverage issued by the DAR on November 22, 1990 (covering the portion of the undeveloped land) was set aside.
August
CASE NO. 7 LBP V. MONTINOLA-ESCANILLA & CO., INC., G.R. NO. 178046, June 13, 2012 A. CASE FACTS
Montinola-Escanilla & Co., Inc. (MECO) is the owner of a parcel of agricultural land situated in Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, covered by OCT No. T-70, out of which 159.088 hectares were acquired by the government in 1995 under R.A. 6657. LBP valued the land on December 29, 1998 at P823,204.08 but MECO rejected it. While summary administrative proceedings for determination of just compensation were pending with the RARAD, MECO filed complaint with the RTC which ruled on October 8, 2002 that the value of the land be at P7,927,660.60, considering that the land had already been developed and worked on by the farmers and farmer-beneficiaries. LBP and DAR filed separate motions for reconsideration which were denied on December 27, 2002. LBP appealed to the CA which on August 8, 2006 set aside the RTC ruling and adopted the Report of two (2) members of the Board of Commissioners commissioned by the RTC that the value of the land is P4,615,194.00. B. ISSUE
Whether or not the RTC was correct in valuing the lands (reclassifying the same to 3rd class cornland and cocoland at P52,000/ha., and P30,000/ha., respectively), for a total of P7,927,660.60.
August
C.
RULING
Section 17 of R.A. 6657, which laid down the factors for the determination of just compensation, should be considered. Further, the Ocular Inspection Report in September 1994 that a substantial portion of the land at that time were still idle and abandoned although the farmer-beneficiaries were already starting to cultivate the same, should be considered in determining its proper value for just compensation, rather than the actual use of the land at the time of appraisal. D. DECISION
The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are set aside, and the case is remanded to the RTC to determine proper just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of R.A. 6657.
August
CASE NO. 8 LBP V. HEIRS OF MAXIMO AND GLORIA PUYAT, G.R. NO. 175055, June 27, 2012 A. CASE FACTS
Gloria and Maximo Puyat are registered owners of a parcel of riceland consisting of 46.8731 hectares located in Brgy. Bakod Bayan, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. Pursuant to P.D. 27, the DAR issued several emancipation patents in favor of farmer-beneficiaries in December 1989, and the same were annotated on the Puyats TCT No. 1773 on March 20, 1990, without the Puyats receiving any compensation. On September 18, 1992, DAR instructed the LBP to pay just compensation to the Puyats. LBP initially valued the land at P92,752.10 at P2,012.50 per hectare, and further deducting the farmers lease-rentals of P5,241.20, recommended payment of P87,510.90. The Puyats rejected the LBPs recommendation and filed a complaint with the RTC on November 24, 1998 for determination and payment of just compensation, praying that the land be valued at P100,000.00 per hectare, which the LBP and the DAR answered by insisting on their own valuation at P2,012.50 per hectare. After determining what law should be applied and considering the evidences and testimonies presented, the RTC ruled that the Puyats should be paid P4,687,310 for the 46.8731 ha. Land area. LBP appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC decision but modified the legal interest period to start not from 1990 but from March 20, 1990, when the emancipation patents were inscribed.
August
B.
ISSUES
1) Whether or not lands acquired pursuant to P.D. 27 be valued using the factors in section 17 of R.A. 6657. 2) Whether or not it is proper to impose the 6% legal interest per annum on the unpaid just compensation. 3) Whether or not the case should be remanded to the trial court for the recomputation of just compensation using Section 17 of R.A. 6657 as amended by R.A. 9700. C. RULINGS
1) In several decisions, jurisprudence of which are applied to the instant case, when the government takes property pursuant to P.D. 27 but does not pay the landowner just compensation until after the effectivity of R.A. 6657, it is more equitable to determine just compensation using R.A. 6657 since the agrarian reform process would only have been completed under the latter law. 2) It is proper to impose the 6% interest due to LBPs delay. It is not double imposition of legal interest as argued by LBP because the courts did not consider the formula under DAR Admin Order. No. 13, series of 1994, which already provides for 6% compound interest in the formula. The SC did not disturb the interest rate imposed by the lower courts. 3) There is no need to remand the case to the lower courts because all administrative remedies have already been exhausted; R.A. 9700 which further amended R.A. 6657, especially the provision on remanding pending cases cannot yet apply because it took effect only when the instant case was already submitted for decision; and that the lower courts properly considered all factors required by the law in determining just compensation. D. DECISION
The petition of LBP was denied for lack of merit and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.

Agrarian Law - Case Digests 083113

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Agrarian Law - Case Digests 083113

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

IVY B.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi