THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 208865, September 28, 2020
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE CUENCA GARCIA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The final determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The Special Agrarian Court is not merely tasked to verify the correctness of the computation of the Department of Agrarian Reform, but it is also given the jurisdiction to make its own, independent evaluation. It is not bound to strictly adhere to the formula and parameters under DAR Administrative Order No. 05-98.
This resolves a Petition for Review1 assailing the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. UDK No. 0307, which affirmed the Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court, acting as a Special Agrarian Court, which set aside Land Bank of the Philippines' (Land Bank) determination of just compensation.
Land Bank is a government banking and financial institution designated as the financial intermediary and co-implementor in the acquisition and distribution of lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.5
Jose Cuenca Garcia (Garcia) is the registered owner of a 10.999-hectare rice land in Ajuy, Iloilo. Sometime in November 1998, the Department of Agrarian Reform sent Garcia a Memorandum of Valuation Claim Folder Profile and Valuation Summary.6 The memorandum was a notice of coverage informing Garcia of the acquisition of his land for distribution to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program's beneficiaries. The government offered Garcia the price of roughly P5.58 per square meter,7 or a total of P647,508.49 for his 10.999 hectare rice land. Believing that his land should have been valued at a higher price, Garcia rejected the offer.8
Due to Garcia's contention, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board - Region VI conducted a preliminary determination of just compensation, but eventually affirmed Land Bank's initial valuation.9
Aggrieved, Garcia filed a petition for fixing of just compensation against the Department of Agrarian Reform, Land Bank, and certain farmer-beneficiaries before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City.10
The parties stipulated the following facts: (1) that Garcia sold the 5.898-hectare lot adjacent to the subject property for P50.00 per square meter, for a total of P2,949,000.00; (2) that the land being acquired is situated on a strategic location as it adjoins the national highway with long frontage and abuts on the sea on the other side; and (3) that there are buildings and improvements on the land, adding market value to the property.11
Garcia claimed that the price offered by the government was without legal and factual bases and was unreasonably low, considering that the land was situated in a strategic location.12 He pointed out that residential properties within the vicinity were valued at P1,000 to P1,500 per square meter,13 and that he was able to sell an adjoining land at P50.00 per square meter, or P500,000.00 per hectare.14 He further claimed that his land should be treated as a "first class irrigated rice land[.]"15
On the other hand, Land Bank argued that the land subject of the acquisition, an unirrigated rice land, was not comparable to the surrounding commercial and industrial lands which had higher values.16
The trial court,17 acting as a Special Agrarian Court, ruled in favor of Garcia and increased just compensation to P2,196,367.40. Thus:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered fixing the just compensation of the total area of the land actually taken in the amount of P2,196,367.4 and ordering [Land Bank of the Philippines] to pay the plaintiff Jose C. Garcia, the total sum of P2,196,367.4 as just compensation for the 10.9990 hectares taken by the government pursuant to R.A. 6657.
SO ORDERED.18
I. COMPARABILITY FACTORS:
...
c) Comparable Sales:
Location Date of Registration . . . Adjusted Ave. Price/ha. Lambunao May [1988] . . . P P59,001.55 -do- [March 1988] . . . 48,673.24 Ajuy, Iloilo [August 1987] . . . 12,790.28 Per Hectare:Total Ave. Price/Ha. 3
Remarks[:] Taken from the province where the property is located P 120,465.07/3P40,155.02/ha.
II. CAPITALIZED NET INCOME:
CROPPRODUCTION/HA. SELLING PRICE Rice-un 4,275 kgs.P8.71 kg.
CNI = 4,275 kgs. x P 8.71 x 0.20/0.12 = P62,058.75
Remarks: Industry data of the province was used.
III. MARKET VALUE PER TAX DECLARATION:
CROP AREA . . . ADJUSTED Rice-un 10.9990 . . . P95,880.00 [Ha.]
Remarks: 1997 SUMV of the province was used.
. . . .
V. COMPUTATION:
CS (P40,155.02 x .30) = P12,046.51 CNI (P62,058.75 x .60) = P37,235.25 MVTD (P95,880.00 x .10) = P9,588.00 COMPUTED VALUE/HA. = P58,869.76 VALUE PER HECTARE USED = P58,869.76 X 10.9990 Ha. LAND VALUE
supplied) = P647,508.49.20 (Emphasis
Date of Tax Declaration | Area | Classification | Market value | Value per hectare |
2001 | 5.6486 | Irrigated rice land | P762,448.02 | P134,980 |
2001 | 5,3504 | Unirrigated rice land | P454,784 | P85,000 |
1998 | 19.5275 | Irrigated rice land | P2,716,470 | P153,60023 |
Land Value = (Capitalized Net Income x 0.6) + (Comparable Sales x 0.3) + Market Value per Tax Declaration x 0.1) CS = P500,000 X .30 = P150,000 CNI = P62,058.75 x .60 = P37,235.25 [M]VTD = P134,980 + P85,000 + P153,000 = P 373,580 = P373,580/3 = P124,526.667 = Pl24,526.667 x 0.10 = P12,452.6667 Computed Value/HA = = P150,000 + P37,235.25 + P12,452.6667 = P199,687.917 Value per hectare used = P199,687.917 x 10.9990 ha. Land value = P2,196,367.425
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the petition for being without merit.
SO ORDERED.34
CS = P500,000/ha[.] CNI = P62,058.75/ha[.] MVTD = (P95,880 +153,600)/2 = P124,740/ha[.] Land Value = (CNI x 0.60) + (CS x 0.30) + (MV x 0.10) = (P62,058.75 X 0.60) + (P500,000 X 0.30) + (P124,740 X 0.10) = P37,235.25 + P150,000 + P12,474 = P199,709.25/ha. Just Compensation = P199,709.25/ha x 10.9990 has. = P2,196,602.0443 (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied)
1) Whether or not the decision of the trial court has already attained finality; and 2) Whether or not the appellate court and the trial court erred in their determination of just compensation; Subsumed under this issue:
- Whether or not the sales transaction in 1997 may be considered under Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order; and
- Whether or not the appellate court considered the strategic location and potential use of the land in its computation.
The distinctions between the various modes of appeal cannot be taken for granted, or easily dismissed, or lightly treated. The appeal by notice of appeal under Rule 41 is a matter [of] right, but the appeal by petition for review under Rule 42 is a matter of discretion. An appeal as a matter of right, which refers to the right to seek the review by a superior court of the judgment rendered by the trial court, exists after the trial in the first instance. In contrast, the discretionary appeal, which is taken from the decision or final order rendered by a court in the exercise of its primary appellate jurisdiction, may be disallowed by the superior court in its discretion. Verily, the CA has the discretion whether to due course to the petition for review or not.
The procedure taken after the perfection of an appeal under Rule 41 also significantly differs from that taken under Rule 42. Under Section I 0 of Rule 41, the clerk of court of the RTC is burdened to immediately undertake the transmittal of the records by verifying the correctness and completeness of the records of the case; the transmittal to the CA must be made within 30 days from the perfection of the appeal. This requirement of transmittal of the records does not arise under Rule 42, except upon order of the CA when deemed necessary.72 (Citations omitted)
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
....
SECTION 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
SECTION 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. (Emphasis supplied)
As earlier observed, the requirement for public use has already been settled for us by the Constitution itself. No less than the 1987 Charter calls for agrarian reform, which is the reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners, subject to the prescribed maximum retention limits. The purposes specified in P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131 and R.A. No. 6657 are only an elaboration of the constitutional injunction that the State adopt the necessary measures "to encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands to enable farmers who are landless to own directly or collectively the lands they till." That public use, as pronounced by the fundamental law itself, must be binding on us.81
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 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.
CHAPTER XII
Administrative Adjudication
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).
CHAPTER XIII
Judicial Review
SECTION 57. Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian Courts 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. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by 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.
d) Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.
It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
It is error to think that, because of Rule XIII, §11, the original and exclusive jurisdiction given to the courts to decide petitions for determination of just compensation has thereby been transformed into an appellate jurisdiction. It only means that, in accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, but such determination is subject to challenge in the courts.
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and exclusive" because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative determination. For that matter, the law may provide that the decision of the DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of administrative action.95 (Citation omitted)
There is no need to exhaust administrative remedies through the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, or the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board before a party can go to the Special Agrarian Court for determination of just compensation.
The final decision on the value of just compensation lies solely on the Special Agrarian Court. Any attempt to convert its original jurisdiction into an appellate jurisdiction is contrary to the explicit provisions of the law....
. . . .
Thus, aggrieved landowners can go directly to the Special Agrarian Court that is legally mandated to determine just compensation, even when no administrative proceeding was conducted before DAR.97 (Citations omitted)
The payment of just compensation for private property taken for public use is guaranteed no less by our Constitution and is included in the Bill of Rights. As such, no legislative enactments or executive issuances can prevent the courts from determining whether the right of the property owners to just compensation has been violated. It is a judicial function that cannot "be usurped by any other branch or official of the government." Thus, we have consistently ruled that statutes and executive issuances fixing or providing for the method of computing just compensation are not binding on courts and, at best, are treated as mere guidelines in ascertaining the amount thereof[.]103 (Citations omitted)
But more importantly, the determination of the just compensation by the DAR is not by any means final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party, for Section 16(f) clearly provides:Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
The determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts of justice will still have the right to review with finality the said determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.106
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.109 (Citation omitted)
Administrative Order No. 5 provides a comprehensive formula that considers several factors present in determining just compensation.
However, as this Court held in Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Land Bank of the Philippines, and Export Processing Zone Authority, it is not adequate to merely use the formula in an administrative order of the Department of Agrarian Reform or rely on the determination of a land assessor to show a final determination of the amount of just compensation. Courts are still tasked with considering all factors present, which may be stated in formulas provided by administrative agencies.
In Land Bank v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, this Court held that when acting within the bounds of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, special agrarian courts "are not strictly bound to apply the [Department of Agrarian Reform] formula to its minute detail, particularly when faced with situations that do not warrant the formula's strict application; they may, in the exercise of their discretion, relax the formula's application to fit the factual situations before them."111 (Citations omitted)
It is settled that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function. 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 have the final say on what the amount of just compensation will be.
Although the DAR is vested with primary jurisdiction under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation for lands taken under the CARP, such determination is subject to challenge in the courts. The CARL vests in the RTCs, sitting as SACs, original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation. This means that the RTCs do not exercise mere appellate jurisdiction over just compensation disputes.
We have held that the jurisdiction of the RTCs is not any less "original and exclusive" because the question is first passed upon by the DAR. The proceedings before the RTC are not a continuation of the administrative determination. Indeed, although the law may provide that the decision of the DAR is final and unappealable, still a resort to the courts cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of administrative action.113 (Citation omitted)
Let it be remembered that shorn of its eminent domain and social justice aspects, what the agrarian land reform program involves is the purchase by the government, through the LBP, of agricultural lands for sale and distribution to farmers. As a purchase, it involves an exchange of values — the landholdings in exchange for the LBP's payment. In determining the just compensation for this exchange, however, the measure to be borne in mind is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss since what is involved is the takeover of private property under the State's coercive power. As mentioned above, in the value-for-value exchange in an eminent domain situation, the State must ensure that the individual whose property is taken is not shortchanged and must hence carry the burden of showing that the "just compensation" requirement of the Bill of Rights is satisfied.
The owner's loss, of course, is not only his property but also its income-generating potential. Thus, when property is taken, full compensation of its value must immediately be paid to achieve a fair exchange for the property and the potential income lost. The just compensation is made available to the property owner so that he may derive income from this compensation, in the same manner that he would have derived income from his expropriated property. If full compensation is not paid for property taken, then the State must make up for the shortfall in the earning potential immediately lost due to the taking, and the absence of replacement property from which income can be derived; interest on the unpaid compensation becomes due as compliance with the constitutional mandate on eminent domain and as a basic measure of fairness.119 (Emphasis supplied)
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
CNI = [(AGP x SP) - CO]/12%
Where:
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
AGP = Annual Gross Product
SP = Selling Price
CO = Cost of Operation
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 25-41.
2 Id. at 10-20. The May 24, 2012 Decision docketed as CA-G.R. SP UDK No. 0307 was penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino of the Special Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu.
3 Id. at 55 56. The July 24, 2013 Resolution docketed as CA-G.R. SP UDK No. 0307 was penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this court) and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino of the Special Former Special Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu.
4 Id. at 109-133. The August 20, 2009 Decision docketed as Civil Case No. 26042 was penned by Judge Ma. Yolanda M. Panaguiton-Gaviño of Branch 34, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo.
5 Id. at 10.
6 Id. at 11.
7 Id. at 113.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 114-115.
12 Id. at 116.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 117, 123.
15 Id. at 123.
16 Id. at 117.
17 Id. at 109-133. The August 20, 2009 Decision docketed as Civil Case No. 26042 was penned by Judge Ma. Yolanda M. Panaguiton Gavino of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Iloilo City.
18 Id. at 132-133.
19 Id. at 129.
20 Id. at 128-129.
21 Id. at 128.
22 Id. at 129.
23 Id. at 130.
24 Id. at 126-128.
25 Id. at 130-131.
26 Id. at 131.
27 Id. at 132.
28 Id. at 134.
29 Id. at 14.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 15.
33 Id. at 16.
34 Id. at 20.
35 Id. at 17.
36 Id.
37 Id. at 17-18.
38 Id. at 18.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 18-19.
41 Id. at 19.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 19-20.
44 Id. at 20.
45 Id. at 55-56.
46 Id. at 23-B.
47 Id. at 294, 318.
48 Id. at 333.
49 Id. at 341.
50 Id. at 25-41.
51 Id. at 31-32.
52 Id. at 33.
53 Id. at 33-34.
54 Id. at 37.
55 Id.
56 Id. at 308.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Id. at 311.
60 Id.
61 Id. at 312.
62 Id. at 341.
63 Id. at 342.
64 Id.
65 Id. at 343.
66Heirs of Garcia I v. Municipality of Iba, Zambales, 764 Phil. 408, 412-415 (2015) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
67 RULES OF COURT, Rule 41, sec. 2(a) provides:
SECTION 2. Modes of appeal. —
(a) Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
68 RULES OF COURT, Rule 41, sec. 2(b) provides:
SECTION 2. Modes of appeal. —
(b) Petition for review. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.
69Heirs of Garcia I v. Municipality of Iba, Zambales, 764 Phil. 408, 413 (2015) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
70 Id. at 415.
71 764 Phil. 408 (2015) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
72 Id. at 415-416.
73 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
74 Republic Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 57 provides:
SECTION 57. Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian Courts 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. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by 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.
75Mercury Drug Corp. v. Spouses Huang, 817 Phil. 434, 445 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
76 Id. at 446.
77Apo Fruits Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 543 Phil. 497-529 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
78 CONST., art. III, sec. 9.
79 See Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Phils, 647 Phil. 251 (2010) [Per J. Brion, En Banc].
80 256 Phil. 777 (1989) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
81 Id. at 812.
82 Id.
83Apo Fruits Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 543 Phil. 497, 519 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
84 Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 05-98, I(C).
85Apo Fruits Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 543 Phil. 497, 519 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
86 Id.
87 Republic Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 16(a) provides:
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.
88 Republic Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 16(d) provides:
SECTION 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
....
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by 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.
89 Republic Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 16(f) provides:
SECTION 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
90 Republic Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 3(d).
91 See Separate Opinion of J. Leonen in Alfonso v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 801 Phil. 217-394 (2016) [Per J. Jardeleza. En Banc].
92 Concurring Opinion of J. Leonen in Alfonso v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 801 Phil. 217, 345 (2016) [Per J. Jardeleza, En Banc].
93Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 141, 148-149 (2000) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division] citing DARAB RULES OF PROCEDURE, Rule XIII, sec. 11 provides:
Section 11. Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just Compensation. — The decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary determination and payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration.
94 379 Phil. 141 (2000) [Per. J. Mendoza. Second Division].
95 Id. at 148-149.
96 824 Phil. 339 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
97 Id. at 367-368.
98 Republic Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 16(f).
99 233 Phil. 313 (1987) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
100 Id. at 326.
101 Id.
102 702 Phil. 491 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
103 Id. at 500.
104 256 Phil. 777 (1989) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
105 Id. at 814.
106 Id. at 815.
107Land Bank of the Philippines v. Manzano, 824 Phil. 339, 367-369 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
108 801 Phil. 217 (2016) [Per J. Jardeleza, En Banc].
109 Id. at 321-322.
110 G.R. No. 203242, March 12, 2019, < http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65060 > [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
111 Id.
112 647 Phil. 20 (2010) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third Division].
113 Id. at 28-29.
114See Separate Opinion of J. Leonen in Alfonso v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 801 Phil. 217, 333-361 (2016) [Per J. Jardeleza, En Banc].
115Land Bank of the Philippines v. Manzano, 824 Phil. 339, 369 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
116See Separate Opinion of J. Leonen in Alfonso v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 801 Phil. 217, 333-361 (2016) [Per J. Jardeleza, En Banc].
117National Power Corp. v. Spouses Ileto, 690 Phil. 453, 476 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
118 543 Phil. 497 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
119 Id. at 276-277.
120 Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 05-98, II(A) provides:
II. The following rules and regulations are hereby promulgated to govern the valuation of lands subject of acquisition whether under voluntary offer to sell (VOS) or compulsory acquisition (CA).
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) + (MVTD 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 the three factors are present, relevant, and applicable.
121 Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 05-98, II (B) provides:
B. Capitalized Net Income (CNI) — This shall refer to the difference between the gross sales (AGP x SP) and total cost of operations (CO) capitalized at 12%.
122 Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 05-98, II (C) provides:
C. CS shall refer to any one or the average of all the applicable sub-factors, namely ST, AC and MVM.
123 Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 05-98, II(C.2)(a) provides:
C.2 The criteria in the selection of the comparable sales transaction (ST) shall be as follows:
a. When the required number of STs is not available at the baragay level, additional STs may be secured from the municipality where the land being offered/covered is situated to complete the required three comparable STs. In case there are more STs available than what is required at the municipal level, the most recent transactions shall be considered. The same rule shall apply at the provincial level when no STs are available at the municipal level. In all cases, the combination of STs sourced from the barangay, municipality and province shall not exceed three transactions.
124 Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 05-98, II(C.2)(b) provides:
C.2 The criteria in the selection of the comparable sales transaction (ST) shall be as follows:
....
b. The land subject of acquisition as well as those subject of comparable sales transactions should be similar in topography, land use, i.e., planted to the same crop. Furthermore, in case of permanent crops, the subject properties should be more or Jess comparable in terms of their stages of productivity and plant density.
125 Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 05-98, II(C.2)(c) provides:
C.2 The criteria in the selection of the comparable sales transaction (ST) shall be as follows:
....
c. The comparable sales transactions should have been executed within the period January 1, 1985 to June 15, 1988, and registered within the period January 1, 1985, to September 13, 1988.
126Rollo, p. 342.
127 Id. at 33-35.cralawredlibrary