Dar Case On Just Compensation
Dar Case On Just Compensation
Dar Case On Just Compensation
-versus-
Present:
Promulgated:
June 13, 2012
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari [1] assails the August 18,
2006 Decision [2] and May 18, 2007 Resolution [3] of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. SP No. 75133, which set aside the October 8, 2002 Decision [4] of
the Regional Trial Court of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, Branch 7 (RTC) and
rendered a new judgment fixing the just compensation due to respondent at
P4,615,194.00 and deleting the award of attorney's fees.
Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) initially valued the subject land
at P823,204.08 [6] but respondent rejected the valuation. Pending summary
administrative proceedings for determination of just compensation before the
DAR Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD), [7] MECO filed a
complaint for determination of just compensation before the RTC, which
constituted a four-member Board of Commissioners (Board of Commissioners)
to evaluate and appraise the just compensation for the subject property
covering 4.4825 has. of rainfed rice land and 154.6056 has. of idle land. [8]
Meanwhile, the RARAD rendered a Decision dated December 29, 1998 fixing
the just compensation at P823,204.08.
On the other hand, the Board of Commissioners was not able to come up with
a unified valuation of the subject property. One commissioner adopted the
findings and recommendation of MECO's appraiser, Asian Appraisal Co., Inc.
(Asian), while another commissioner adopted the valuation of petitioner LBP.
The remaining two commissioners submitted their Commissioners' Report [9]
recommending the amount of P4,615,194.00 [10] as the “just and fair market
value of the land subject of the case considering that the land was cleared,
worked and cultivated by the farmers and/or parents of the farmers-
beneficiaries as early as 1980 and introduced valuable improvements thereon
such as coconuts, falcattas, bananas, corn and other agricultural crops.” [11]
On October 8, 2002, the RTC, rendered a Decision [12] fixing the just
compensation of the property at P7,927,660.60 [13] computed as follows:
Petitioner LBP and the DAR Secretary filed separate motions for
reconsideration which were both denied in the Order [15] dated December 27,
2002.
LBP appealed to the CA, averring that the RTC erred in disregarding R.A. No.
6657 and its implementing guidelines, DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 6,
Series of 1992, as amended, in valuing the subject land. It contended that the
valuation heavily banked on present considerations or future potentials of the
subject property instead of its value at the time of taking. It likewise assailed
the propriety of the award of attorney's fees.
The CA Ruling
In the Decision [16] dated August 18, 2006, the CA set aside the RTC's
valuation for failure to give due consideration to the factors enumerated in
Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657. While it observed that LBP considered some
factors, not all the factors were taken into account and substantiated. It
thereby adopted the Commissioners' Report submitted by the two
commissioners as the only unbiased determination of just compensation.
However, it deleted the award of attorney's fees for being improper.
In the instant petition for review, LBP contends that the CA erred in adopting
the valuation in the Commissioners' Report which did not state the basis
thereof, and was based on the fair market value approach instead of the basic
formula prescribed by DAR A.O. No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by DAR
A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994. Moreover, the classification of the acquired
property into coconut and corn lands was misleading because at the time of
actual taking, 154.6055 has. were idle and abandoned and 4.4825 has.
consisted of rainfed riceland.
In the present case, while the Amended Complaint [20] described the acquired
property as:
Classification Area/Has.
Rainfed riceland 4.4825
Bushland flat 1.5880
Bushland rolling 153.0176
159.0881
Consequently, there is a need to remand the case to the court a quo for
reception of evidence and final determination of just compensation taking into
account the factors under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657.
WHEREFORE, the assailed August 18, 2006 Decision and May 18, 2007
Resolution rendered by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 75133 are hereby SET
ASIDE. The records of the case are remanded to the court a quo which is
directed to determine with dispatch the proper just compensation for the
subject property considering the factors set forth under Section 17 of R.A. No.
6657.
SO ORDERED.