Agrarian Law Case Digest (Set B)

Gomba, Jasmin M. LLB-2A

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS SPOUSES ROSA AND PEDRO COSTO

Facts: Respondents were owner of a parcel of land wherein after the passage of RA 6657 they voluntarily offered the same to the DAR under CARP. Petitioner made valuation on the land which they rejected. This impelled petitioner to deposit the offer in form of cash and bonds in favor of the respondents as provisional compensation for the property. Respondents sought determination of just compensation with PAB of DAR. PARAD rendered decision in favor of the respondents. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for determination of just compensation in the RTC. SAC rendered decision finding the valuation of the PARAD as the more realistic valuation. Petitioner then sought recourse before the CA but affirmed the decision of SAC. Hence present petition.

Issue: WON the court erred in affirming the decision of the RTC(SAC) in determining just compensation.

Ruling: NO, the court did not erred in its decision. Under RA 6657, LBP is charged in determining  just compensation of the property. In case the landowner reject the offer the case shall be decided by the DARAB. A party who disagrees with the decision of the DAR adjudicator may bring the matter to the RTC for the determination of just compensation. In determining just compensation, RTC is required to consider the factors enumerated in RA 6657: that in determining the just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like property, its nature actual use and income the sworn valuation by the owner the tax declaration and the assessment made by the government assessor shall be considered. The ascertainment of just compensation by the RTC on the basi s of the landholding’s nature, location, market value, assessor’s value, and the volume and value of the produce is valid and in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657.

Gomba, Jasmin M. LLB-2A

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ENRIQUE LIVIOCO

Facts: Respondent was the owner of sugar land which he offered do the DAR for acquisition. Following Sec. 17 of RA 6657 LBP set the price of the land. Respondent was informed but did not act upon the notice given to him. Two years later, Respondent requested for a reevaluation of the compensation which was denied on the ground that there was already a perfected sale. DAR awarded CLOAs covering the respondents property. Respondent filed a complaints to cancel the CLOAs and to recover property but the same was denied. Respondent then filed a petition for reconveyance before the DAR. The case eventually reached the CA which dismissed the petition

Issue: WON the compensation of the respondent’s property is in accordance with law.

Ruling: No, the valuation of the lower court is not proper as it is not in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657 which states that in determining the just compensation, the cost of acquisition of  the land, the current value of like property, its nature actual use and income the sworn valuation by the owner the tax declaration and the assessment made by the government assessor shall be considered. The decision was only based on respondent’s evidence which were irrelevant or off-tangent to the factor laid down by the said law. LBP’s valuation did not also substantiate its valuation. LBP merely submitted its computation to the court without evidence on record. Given that the parties failed to adduce the evidence of the property’s value as an agricultural land at the time of taking, it is premature for the court to make final decision. Hence there is a need to remand the case to the RTC SAC for reception of evidence.