Land Use | 1996 | 1998 | 1999 | Average |
Cornland | 100,140.70 | 62,695.23 | 60,371.31 | 74,402.41 |
Riceland Irrigated | 137,197.67 | 49,373.99 | | 93,285.83 |
Riceland Rainfed | | 34,511.66 | | 34,511.66 |
Riceland Unirrigated | 43,374.44 | 37,582.40 | | 40,748.42 |
Rice Upland | | 20,271.41 | | 20,271.41 |
Vegetables | 20,379.20 | | | 20,379.20 |
Land Use | Area in has. | Land Value Per Ha. (PhP) | Total Land Value PhP |
This MOV | | | |
Upland Rice land | 1.2700 | 20,271.41 | P 25,744.69 |
Cornland | 8.5889 | 74,402.41 | 639,034.85 |
Vegetable land | 0.2400 | 20,379.20 | 4,891.01 |
Cornland (not idle) | 392.2846 | 74,402.41 | 29,186,919.00 |
Subtotal | 402.3835 | | P 29,856,589.55 |
For subsequent MOV | | | |
Riceland irrigated | 3.7940 | 93,285.33 | P 353,924.54 |
Riceland unirrigated | 6.1289 | 37,582.40 | 230,338.77 |
Corn land | 33.9311 | 74,402.41 | 2,524,555.60 |
Sub-total | 43.8540 | | P 3,108,818.91 |
Total | | | P 32,965,408.46 |
Land Use | Area Acq'd (Ha.) | Average LV/Ha. | Total Land Value |
Irrig. Riceland | 3.7940 | 50, 354.07 | P 191,043.34 |
Unirrig. Riceland | 6.1289 | 20,158.64 | 123,550.29 |
Upland Riceland | 1.2700 | 14,401.00 | 18,289.27 |
Cornland | 42.5200 | 33,986.01 | 1,445,085.15 |
Vegetable land | 0.2400 | 14,401.00 | 3,456.24 |
Idleland (below 18 slope) | 392.2846 | 9,802.32 | 3,845,299.18 |
| 446.2375 | | P 5,626,723.47 |
In the case at bench, petitioners have availed of the summary administrative proceedings in determining the just compensation due for their property under docket of JC RARAD Case No. 11-001-ISA-99. But just because they have agreed to the amount thereof fixed by the RARAD does not, however, mean that his decision has become final and executory. It must be remembered that the law requires the consensus of three (3) parties in the determination of just compensation: the landowner's, the DAR's and the LBP's. Since the LBP did not agree with the DAR's decision, then it had a right to invoke the court a quo's jurisdiction. The RARAD's decision will not serve to bar this subsequent suit for the simple reason that said decision has not attained finality as not all the parties concerned agreed to the amount of just compensation he had fixed.36
- WHETHER THE SUMMARY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEING CONDUCTED BY THE DARAB FOR THE DETERMINATION FOR JUST COMPENSATION OF LANDS PLACED UNDER THE COVERAGE OF CARP IS IN ACTUALITY A SALE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE LANDOWNERS AND DAR WHICH CAN BE CONCLUDED AND CONSUMMATED BY THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES;
- WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE RARAD DATED 29 MARCH 2000 FIXING THE JUST COMPENSATION FOR PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AT P32,965,408.46 HAD BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY UPON FAILURE OF RESPONDENT LAND BANK TO INTERPOSE AN APPEAL WITH THE SUPREME COURT AS MANDATED BY SECTION 60 OF R.A. NO. 6657;
- WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS THE PERSONALITY OR CAUSE OF ACTION TO INSTITUTE A CASE AGAINST LANDOWNERS AT THE SAC;
- WHETHER THE DARAB EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS HAS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE SAC IN THE DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION CASES INVOLVING LANDS PLACED BY DAR UNDER CARP COVERAGE;
- WHETHER THE SAC CAN ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION FILED BY RESPONDENT AFTER THE RARAD HAD RENDERED ITS DECISION OF 29 MARCH 2000 AND A WRIT OF EXECUTION IS ISSUED;
- WHETHER RESPONDENT LAND BANK IS GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING.37
Sections 50 and 57 of RA No. 6657 provide:
Section 50. Quasi-judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) x x x
Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. - The Special Agrarian Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. x x x
The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision.
Clearly, under Section 50, DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DA and the DENR. Further exception to the DAR's original and exclusive jurisdiction are all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA No. 6657, which are within the jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a Special Agrarian Court. Thus, jurisdiction on just compensation cases for the taking of lands under RA No. 6657 is vested in the courts.
In Republic v. CA, the Court explained:
Thus, Special Agrarian Courts, which are Regional Trial Courts, are given original and exclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases, to wit: (1) "all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners" and (2) "the prosecution of all criminal offenses under [R.A. No. 6657]." The provisions of §50 must be construed in harmony with this provision by considering cases involving the determination of just compensation and criminal cases for violations of R.A. No. 6657 as excepted from the plenitude of power conferred on the DAR. Indeed, there is a reason for this distinction. The DAR is an administrative agency which cannot be granted jurisdiction over cases of eminent domain (for such are takings under R.A. No. 6657) and over criminal cases. Thus, in EPZA v. Dulay and Sumulong v. Guerrero - we held that the valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial function which cannot be vested in administrative agencies, while in Scoty's Department Store v. Micaller, we struck down a law granting the then Court of Industrial Relations jurisdiction to try criminal cases for violations of the Industrial Peace Act.
In a number of cases, the Court has upheld the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, sitting as SAC, over all petitions for determination of just compensation to landowners in accordance with Section 57 of RA No. 6657.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, the Court upheld the RTC's jurisdiction over Wycoco's petition for determination of just compensation even where no summary administrative proceedings was held before the DARAB which has primary jurisdiction over the determination of land valuation. The Court held:
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the landowner filed an action for determination of just compensation without waiting for the completion of DARAB's re-evaluation of the land. This, notwithstanding, the Court held that the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction because of its exclusive and original jurisdiction over determination of just compensation, thus -
... It is clear from Sec. 57 that the 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 original jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of administrative decisions. Thus, although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from Sec. 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 an appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to Sec. 57 and, therefore, would be void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC [Special Agrarian Court] by private respondent is valid.
x x x
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, wherein Land Bank questioned the alleged failure of private respondents to seek reconsideration of the DAR's valuation, but instead filed a petition to fix just compensation with the RTC, the Court said:
At any rate, in Philippine Veterans Bank v. CA, we held that there is nothing contradictory between the DAR's primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, which includes the determination of questions of just compensation, and the original and exclusive jurisdiction of regional trial courts over all petitions for the determination of just compensation. The first refers to administrative proceedings, while the second refers to judicial proceedings.
In accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR to determine in a preliminary manner the just compensation for the lands taken under the agrarian reform program, but such determination is subject to challenge before the courts. The resolution of just compensation cases for the taking of lands under agrarian reform is, after all, essentially a judicial function.
Thus, the trial court did not err in taking cognizance of the case as the determination of just compensation is a function addressed to the courts of justice.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, where the issue was whether the SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction over respondent's petition for determination of just compensation despite the pendency of the administrative proceedings before the DARAB, the Court stated that:
It would be well to emphasize that the taking of property under RA No. 6657 is an exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State. The valuation of property or determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the courts and not with administrative agencies. Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of respondent's petition for determination of just compensation.
It is clear from Sec. 57 that the 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 excusive" jurisdiction of the RTC would be undermined if the DAR would vest in administrative officials original jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of administrative decisions. Thus, although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from Sec. 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 an appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to Sec. 57 and therefore would be void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC by private respondent is valid.52
Sec. 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. -- The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP x x x, or as may be finally determined by the court as the just compensation for the land.
LBP is an agency created primarily to provide financial support in all phases of agrarian reform pursuant to Section 74 of Republic Act (RA) No. 3844 and Section 64 of RA No. 6657. It is vested with the primary responsibility and authority in the valuation and compensation of covered landholdings to carry out the full implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program. It may agree with the DAR and the land owner 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.
Once an expropriation proceeding for the acquisition of private agricultural lands is commenced by the DAR, the indispensable role of LBP begins, which clearly shows that there would never be a judicial determination of just compensation absent respondent LBP's participation. Logically, it follows that respondent is an indispensable party in an action for the determination of just compensation in cases arising from agrarian reform program; as such, it can file an appeal independently of DAR.61
The Court of Appeals was indeed in error for denying LBP its right to file an appeal on the ground that it was not a real party-in-interest, since it did not stand to lose or gain anything from the RTC Decision dated 11 March 2003 in Special Agrarian Case No. 61-2000. It is worthy to note that in making its pronouncement that LBP was a mere depositary of the Agrarian Reform Fund and the financial intermediary for purposes of the CARL, the appellate court was unable to cite any statutory or jurisprudential basis therefor.
To the contrary, the Court had already recognized in Sharp International Marketing v. Court of Appeals that the LBP plays a significant role under the CARL and in the implementation of the CARP, thus:As may be gleaned very clearly from EO 229, the LBP is an essential part of the government sector with regard to the payment of compensation to the landowner. It is, after all, the instrumentality that is charged with the disbursement of public funds for purposes of agrarian reform. It is therefore part, an indispensable cog, in the governmental machinery that fixes and determines the amount compensable to the landowner. Were LBP to be excluded from that intricate, if not sensitive, function of establishing the compensable amount, there would be no amount "to be established by the government" as required in Sec. 6, EO 229. This is precisely why the law requires the [Deed of Absolute Sale (DAS)], even if already approved and signed by the DAR Secretary, to be transmitted still to the LBP for its review, evaluation and approval.
It needs no exceptional intelligence to understand the implications of this transmittal. It simply means that if LBP agrees on the amount stated in the DAS, after its review and evaluation, it becomes its duty to sign the deed. But not until then. For, it is only in that event that the amount to be compensated shall have been "established" according to law. Inversely, if the LBP, after review and evaluation, refuses to sign, it is because as a party to the contract it does not give its consent thereto. This necessarily implies the exercise of judgment on the part of LBP, which is not supposed to be a mere rubber stamp in the exercise. Obviously, were it not so, LBP could not have been made a distinct member of [Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC)], the super body responsible for the successful implementation of the CARP. Neither would it have been given the power to review and evaluate the DAS already signed by the DAR Secretary. If the function of the LBP in this regard is merely to sign the DAS without the concomitant power of review and evaluation, its duty to "review/evaluate" mandated in Adm. Order No. 5 would have been a mere surplus age, meaningless, and a useless ceremony.
x x x x
Even more explicit is R.A. 6657 with respect to the indispensable role of LBP in the determination of the amount to be compensated to the landowner. Under Sec. 18 thereof, "the LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and LBP, in accordance with the criteria provided in Secs. 16 and 17, and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally determined by the court, as the just compensation for the land."
Without the signature of the LBP President, there was simply no contract between Sharp and the Government. The Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 9, 1989, was incomplete and therefore had no binding effect at all. Consequently, Sharp cannot claim any legal right thereunder that it can validly assert in a petition for mandamus. (Emphasis in the original)
The issue of whether LBP can file an appeal on its own, separately and independently of the DAR, in land valuation and just compensation cases, had been squarely addressed by the Court in Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, (G.R. No. 148223, 25 November 2004, 444 SCRA 176, 186-188), where it ruled:It must be observed that once an expropriation proceeding for the acquisition of private agricultural lands is commenced by the DAR, the indispensable role of Land Bank begins.
x x x
It is evident from the afore-quoted jurisprudence that the role of LBP in the CARP is more than just the ministerial duty of keeping and disbursing the Agrarian Reform Funds. As the Court had previously declared, the LBP is primarily responsible for the valuation and determination of compensation for all private lands. It has the discretion to approve or reject the land valuation and just compensation for a private agricultural land placed under the CARP. In case the LBP disagrees with the valuation of land and determination of just compensation by a party, the DAR, or even the courts, the LBP not only has the right, but the duty, to challenge the same, by appeal to the Court of Appeals or to this Court, if appropriate. x x x63
There is forum shopping when, in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action and relief sought. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. For litis pendentia to exist, the following requisites must be present:
- Identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions;
- Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts;
- 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.67
Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. -- In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessments 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.
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 ValueCNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration
The above formula shall be used if all three factors are present, relevant and applicable.A1. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, the formula shall be:LV = (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)
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 idle 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.71
Endnotes:
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador with Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner, and Jose C. Reyes, Jr., concurring.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador with Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner, and Jose C. Reyes, Jr., concurring.
4 Penned by RTC Judge Fe Albano Madrid.
5 Rollo, p. 5.
6 Id. at 192.
7 Section 64. Financial Intermediary for the CARP. - The Land Bank of the Philippines shall be the financial intermediary for the CARP, and shall insure that the social justice objectives of the CARP shall enjoy a preference among its priorities.
8 Rollo, p. 77.
9 Id. at 192-193, 214-215.
10 CA rollo, p. 52.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 48.
13 A total of P5,626,723.47 for 446.2375 hectares.
14 CA rollo, p. 49.
15 Id. at 51-54.
16 Id. at 114.
17 Id. at 58.
18 Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. - The Special Agrarian Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act.
The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision.
19 CA rollo, p. 10.
20 Rollo, pp. 9-10.
21 Id. at 163.
22 Id. at 164.
23 Id. at 216.
24 Id.
25 Id. at 217.
26 Id. at 165.
27 Id. at 63.
28 Id. at 70.
29 Id. at 36-57.
30 Id. at 26.
31 Id. at 35.
32 Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer.
33 Rollo, p. 83.
34 Id.
35 Id. at 25-26.
36 Id.
37 Id. at 8a.
38 Id. at 11-12.
39 Id. at 10.
40 Id. at 14.
41 Id. at 8a.
42 Id. at 200-201.
43 Fuentes v. Caguimbal, G.R. No. 150305, 22 November 2007, 538 SCRA 12, 25.
44 Sanchez v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 155, 186 (1997).
45 Dosch v. NLRC, et al., 208 Phil. 259, 272 (1983).
46 478 Phil. 701 (2004).
47 Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. - For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
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.
48 The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) or the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD), depending on the value of the land within their respective territorial jurisdiction. (Rule II, Sec. 2, DARAB Rules of Procedure).
49 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Spouses Banal, supra note 46 at 708-709.
50 G.R. No. 164631, 26 June 2009, 591 SCRA 137, 143-147.
51 376 Phil. 252 (1999).
52 Id. at 262-263.
53 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 167809, 27 November 2008, 572 SCRA 108, 137.
54 Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, 14 July 1989, 175 SCRA 343, 382.
55 Id. at 373-374.
56 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, G.R. No. 164876, 23 January 2006, 479 SCRA 495, 505.
57 Land Bank v. Dumlao, supra note 53 at 137.
58 Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, supra note 54 at 382.
59 Sec. 16(f) and Sec. 57, RA 6657.
60 G.R. No. 180557, 26 September 2008, 566 SCRA 557.
61 Id. at 565-566.
62 G.R. No. 174971, 15 October 2008, 569 SCRA 154.
63 Id. at 174-177.
64 412 Phil. 467 (2001).
65 Id. at 474.
66 399 Phil. 539 (2000).
67 Id. at 548-549.
68 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Luciano, G.R. No. 165428, 25 November 2009.
69 Supra note 56.
70 Id. at 507.
71 Id. at 508.
72 Supra note 46.
73 G.R. No. 171941, 2 August 2007, 529 SCRA 129.
74 G.R. No. 175175, 29 September 2008, 567 SCRA 31.
75 Rollo, p. 346.
76 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Gallego, Jr., G.R. No. 173226, 20 January 2009, 576 SCRA 680, 693.
77 Id.
78 Sec. 6. Determination of factual issues. - Whenever necessary to resolve factual issues, the court itself may conduct hearings thereon or delegate the reception of the evidence on such issues to any of its members or to an appropriate court, agency or office.
79 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Gallego, Jr., supra at 693. See Republic v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 530 (1998); Manotok Realty, Inc., et al. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 123346, 14 December 2007, 540 SCRA 304.