SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 175726, March 22, 2017
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF ANTONIO MARCOS, SR., NAMELY: ANITA M. RUBIO, LOLITA M. PELINO, ANTONIO MARCOS, JR. AND RAMIRO D. MARCOS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
For this Court's resolution is a petition for review on certiorari, dated January 24, 2007, of petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated May 26, 2006 and Resolution2 dated December 6, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA), affirming the Decision3 and Order,4 dated January 23, 2004 and March 30, 2004, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Sorsogon City, Branch 52.
The antecedents are as follows:
The deceased Antonio Marcos, Sr. (Antonio) was the owner of two parcels of agricultural land or landholdings located at Malbog, Pilar, Sorsogon, consisting of 14.9274 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 2552 and 9.4653 hectares covered by TCT No. 2562.5
On April 3, 1995, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657,6Ramiro Marcos (Ramiro), authorized representative of the heirs of Antonio, namely: Anita Rubio, Lolita M. Pelino, Antonio Marcos, Jr. and Ramiro, offered to sell the landholdings to the Republic of the Philippines through its implementing arm, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).7
On July 10, 1996, petitioner LBP valued the lands covered by TCT Nos. 2552 and 2562 at P195,603.70 and P79,096.26, respectively.8
On August 11, 1997, Ramiro filed with the DAR two (2) Landowner's Reply to Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition forms pertaining to the landholdings. In the said forms, Ramiro indicated that the respondents were accepting LBP's valuation of the landholdings. On the same date, the DAR Regional Director sent a memorandum to the LBP requesting the preparation of a deed of transfer over the landholdings and payment of the purchase price to respondents based on petitioner's valuation.9
While the payment of the purchase price is pending, the DAR brought the matter of valuation to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Office of the Provincial Adjudicator, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, on June 15, 2000 requesting that summary administrative proceedings be conducted to determine the just compensation for the landholdings.10
After proper proceedings, the Provincial Adjudicator rendered Decisions LV Cases Nos. 084'0011 and 085'00,12 both dated November 29, 2000, the dispositive portions of which read:
LV Case No. 084'00.-Disagreeing with the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator, the LBP filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation for the landholdings with the RTC sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC).13
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the prior valuation of the LBP is hereby set aside and a new valuation is fixed at FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX PESOS and .03 Centavos (P446,786.03) for the acquired area of 14.9274 hectares at Twenty-Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred Thirty Pesos and .60 Centavos (P29,930.60) per hectare is adopted. The Land Bank of the Philippines is hereby ordered to pay the same to the landowners in the manner provided for by law.
SO ORDERED.
LV Case No. 085'00.-
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the prior valuation of the LBP is hereby set aside and a new valuation is fixed at TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWO PESOS and .10 Centavos (P283,302.10) for the acquired area of 9.4653 hectares at Twenty-Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred Thirty Pesos and .60 Centavos (P29,930.60) per hectare is adopted. The Land Bank of the Philippines is hereby ordered to pay the same to the landowners in the manner provided for by law.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, but was denied per Order16 dated March 30, 2004.
1. Fixing the amount of FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX PESOS and .03 Centavos (P446,786.03) for the acquired area of 14.9274 hectares at P30,507.68 per hectare and the amount of TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWO PESOS and .10 Centavos (P283,302.10) for the acquired area of 9.4653 hectares at P29,930.60 per hectare for the just compensation of that two (2) parcels of land situated at Malbog, Pilar, Sorsogon covered by TCT No. T-2552 and TCT No. T-2562 owned by the Heirs of Antonio Marcos, Sr. which property was taken by the government pursuant to R.A. No. 6657.
2. Ordering the Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines to pay the Private Respondents the amount of Four Hundred Forty-Six Thousand, Seven Hundred Eighty-Six & .03 centavos (P446,786.03) Pesos and, Two Hundred Eighty-Three Thousand Three Hundred Two and .10 centavos (P283,302.10), or the total amount of Seven Hundred Thirty Thousand Eighty-Eight and .13 centavos (P730,088.13) Pesos, in the manner provided by R.A. No. 6657 by way of full payment of the just compensation after deducting whatever amount previously received by the private respondents from the Petitioner Land Bank as part of just compensation.
3. Without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.15
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant petition is DISMISSED, with the result that the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon City (Branch 52) is AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs.The CA denied the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner in a Resolution dated December 6, 2006.
SO ORDERED.19
This Court finds this petition partly meritorious.
- CAN THE COURT OF APPEALS OR THE SAC DISREGARD THE VALUATION FACTORS UNDER SECTION 17 OF R.A. 6657 WHICH ARE TRANSLATED INTO A BASIC FORMULA IN DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF SPS. BANAL AND CELADA, IN FIXING THE JUST COMPENSATION FOR SUBJECT PROPERTIES?
- CAN THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATOR (PARAD) ABROGATE, VARY OR ALTER A CONSUMMATED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND RESPONDENTS IN REGARD TO SUBJECT PROPERTIES?20
A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by VOS or CA:In the recent case of Alfonso v. Land Bank of the Philippines,30 this Court reiterated:
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 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
For the guidance of the bench, the bar, and the public, we reiterate the rule: Out of regard for the DAR's expertise as the concerned implementing agency, courts should henceforth consider the factors stated in Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, as translated into the applicable DAR formulas in their determination of just compensation for the properties covered by the said law. If, in the exercise of their judicial discretion, courts find that a strict application of said formulas is not warranted under the specific circumstances of the case before them, they may deviate or depart therefrom, provided that this departure or deviation is supported by a reasoned explanation grounded on the evidence on record. In other words, courts of law possess the power to make a final determination of just compensation.The fixing of just compensation that is based on the landowner's prayer falls within the exercise of the RTC-SAC's discretion and, therefore, should be upheld as a valid exercise of its jurisdiction.31 Similarly, the fixing of just compensation based on the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator in this case is within the context of this judicial prerogative. However, a reading of the decisions of the PARAD would reveal that he did not apply or consider the formula in DAR AO No. 5, series of 1998. He based his decision with the rule on admissibility of evidence of bona fide sales transaction of nearby places in determining the market value of like properties and applied the valuation of LBP with the property of Norma Marcos Clemente and Placienda de Ares after ruling that the properties of respondents are comparable with the said properties.32 His decisions did not mention the consideration of the formula laid down by the DAR in the valuation of the properties of respondents.
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Sesinando E. Villon, concurring; rollo, pp. 55-64.
2Id. at 65.
3 Penned by Judge Honesto A. Villamor, id. at 110-114.
4 CA rollo, p. 34.
5Rollo p. 9.
6 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
7Rollo, pp. 9-10.
8Id. at 10.
9Id.
10Id.
11 CA rollo, p. 55.
12Id. at 57.
13Rollo, p. 11.
14Id. at 111-112.
15Id. at 114.
16Id. at 13.
17Id.
18Id.
19Id. at 17. (Emphasis in the original)
20Id. at 30-31. (Citation omitted)
21Id. at 32.
22 683 Phil. 247 (2012).
23Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation, supra, at 256.
24Id. at 257, citing Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Hon. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 256 Phil. 777, 812 (1989).
25Land Bank of the Philippines v. Eusebio, Jr., G.R. No. 160143, July 2, 2014, 728 SCRA 447, 461.
26 724 Phil. 276 (2014).
27 Section 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 assessment made by government assessors, shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm workers 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.
28Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, 515 Phil. 467, 479-480 (2006).
29Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprise, supra note 26, at 287.
30 G.R. Nos. 181912 & 183347, November 29, 2016.
31Land Bank of the Philippines v. Eusebio, supra note 25, at 465.
32Rollo, p. 136.
33Id. at 113.
34Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprise, supra note 26, at 287-288.
35Rollo, pp. 44-45.
36Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 419 Phil. 457, 474 (2001).
37Commissioner of Public Highways v. Burgos, 185 Phil. 606, 610 (1980).
38Rollo, p. 15.
39Heirs of Lorenzo and Carmen Vidad, et al. v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 634 Phil. 9, 38 (2010).
40 R.A. 6657, Sec. 16 (b).
41 R.A. 6657, Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. - x x x
x x x x
(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.