Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

27

LBP vs CA, Yap


Just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the
owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its
taking. Without prompt payment,compensation cannot be considered "just" for the property
owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being
made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with
his loss.
To withhold the right of the landowners to appropriate the amounts already deposited in their
behalf as compensation for their properties simply because they rejected the DAR's valuation,
and notwithstanding that they have already been deprived of the possession and use of such
properties, is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain. It must be stressed, however, that in
the pursuit of this objective, vigilance over the rights of the landowners is equally important
because social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners, who
26
under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection.

G.R. No. 126332November 16, 1999


LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
, petitioner,vs.
COURT OF APPEALS
and MARCIA E. RAMOS, respondents
RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions
for the determination of just compensation to landowners." This "original and exclusive"
jurisdiction of the RTC would be undermined if the DAR would vest in administrative officials the
original jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court for the review
of administrative decisions. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to
convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into an appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to
the CARL (Sec. 57) and therefore would be void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC by private
respondent is valid.
LAND
BANK
OF
vs.
DOMINGO AND MAMERTO SORIANO,

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

RIZALINA GUSTILO BARRIDO and HEIRS OF ROMEO BARRIDO,


Respondents.
The issues raised in the instant case are not novel. We have ruled in a number of cases that if
just compensation is not settled prior to the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, it should
be computed in accordance with said law even if the property was acquired under P.D. No.
[12]
27. The fixing of just compensation should, therefore, be based on the parameters prescribed
in R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 having only suppletory effect.
A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by
VOS or CA:
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 Tax Declaration

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.

LV = (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)


The government cannot be forced to purchase land which it finds no need for,
A2. When the CNI factor is not present, and CS and MV are applicable, the
formula shall be:
LV = (CS x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)
A3. When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is applicable, the
formula shall be:
LV = MV x 2
In no case shall the value of the land using the formula MV x 2 exceed
the lowest value of land within the same estate under consideration or within
the same barangay or municipality (in that order) approved by LBP within one
(1) year from receipt of claimfolder.

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.

Allied banking corp vs LBP


Jurisprudence has not been wanting in reminding special agrarian courts to resolve just
determination cases judiciously and with utmost observance of Section 17 of the agrarian law
and the administrative orders issued by the DAR implementing the said provision.
The SAC was at no liberty to disregard the formula which was devised to
implement the said provision.
We find that the factors required by the law and enforced by the DAR
Administrative Order were not observed by the SAC when it adopted wholeheartedly
the valuation arrived at in the appraisal report.