Land Bank v. Palmares (G.R. No. 192890; June 17, 2013)
CASE DIGEST: LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. VIRGINIA PALMARES, LERMA P. AVELINO, MELILIA P. VILLA, NINIAN P. CATEQUISTA, LUIS PALMARES, JR., SALVE P. VALENZUELA, GEORGE P. PALMARES, AND DENCEL P. PALMARES HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LERMA P. AVELINO, Respondents.
FACTS: Respondents inherited a 19.98 hectare agricultural land located in Iloilo. In 1995, they voluntarily offered the land for sale to the government pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Law of 1988. DAR acquired 19.107 hectares of the entire are which was valued by LBP at P440,355.92. Respondents rejected said amount. DARAB resolved to adopt LBPs valuation. Hence, the same amount was deposited to respondents credit as provisional compensation.The RTC of Iloilo ordered LBP to recomputed hence the land increased from 440,355.92 to 503,148.97. Respondents still rejected the offer.
RTC rendered a decision fixing the just compensation to 669,962.53. The trial court arrived at its own computation by getting an average of the price per hectare as computed by LBP in accordance with DAR guidelines and the market value of the land per hectare as shown in the tax declaration.
LBP appealed to the CA arguing that the computation made by the RTC failed to consider the factors in determining just compensation an enumerated under section 17 of RA 6657.
The appellate court affirmed RTC ruling as having been arrived at in consonance with Section 17 of RA 6657. It emphasized that the determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function and, in the exercise thereof, courts should be given ample discretion and should not be delimited by mathematical formulas.
ISSUE: Is the CA's ruling correct?
HELD: The principal basis of the computation for just compensation is Section 17 of RA 6657,which enumerates the following factors to guide the special agrarian courts in the determination thereof :
[1] Acquisition cost of the land
[2] Current value of the properties
[3] Its nature, actual use, and income
[4] The sworn valuation by the owner
[5] The tax declaration
[6] The assessment made by government assessors
[7]The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the government to the property
[8] The non payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution of the said land, if any
In the instant case, the trial court found to be unrealistically low the total valuation by LBP and the DAR in the amount of P440,355.92, which was computed on the basis of DAR AO No. 6 series of 1992 as amended by DAR AO No. 11 Series of 1994. It then merely proceeded to add said valuation to the market value of the subject land as appearing in the 1997 tax declaration, and used the average of such values to fix the just compensation.
While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function vestd in the RTC acting as a special agrarian court, the judge cannot abuse his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules.
We agree with the LBP that the double take up of the market value per tax declaration as a valuation factor completely destroys the rationale of the formula laid down by the DAR. GRANTED.
FACTS: Respondents inherited a 19.98 hectare agricultural land located in Iloilo. In 1995, they voluntarily offered the land for sale to the government pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Law of 1988. DAR acquired 19.107 hectares of the entire are which was valued by LBP at P440,355.92. Respondents rejected said amount. DARAB resolved to adopt LBPs valuation. Hence, the same amount was deposited to respondents credit as provisional compensation.The RTC of Iloilo ordered LBP to recomputed hence the land increased from 440,355.92 to 503,148.97. Respondents still rejected the offer.
RTC rendered a decision fixing the just compensation to 669,962.53. The trial court arrived at its own computation by getting an average of the price per hectare as computed by LBP in accordance with DAR guidelines and the market value of the land per hectare as shown in the tax declaration.
LBP appealed to the CA arguing that the computation made by the RTC failed to consider the factors in determining just compensation an enumerated under section 17 of RA 6657.
The appellate court affirmed RTC ruling as having been arrived at in consonance with Section 17 of RA 6657. It emphasized that the determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function and, in the exercise thereof, courts should be given ample discretion and should not be delimited by mathematical formulas.
ISSUE: Is the CA's ruling correct?
HELD: The principal basis of the computation for just compensation is Section 17 of RA 6657,which enumerates the following factors to guide the special agrarian courts in the determination thereof :
[2] Current value of the properties
[3] Its nature, actual use, and income
[4] The sworn valuation by the owner
[5] The tax declaration
[6] The assessment made by government assessors
[7]The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the government to the property
[8] The non payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution of the said land, if any
In the instant case, the trial court found to be unrealistically low the total valuation by LBP and the DAR in the amount of P440,355.92, which was computed on the basis of DAR AO No. 6 series of 1992 as amended by DAR AO No. 11 Series of 1994. It then merely proceeded to add said valuation to the market value of the subject land as appearing in the 1997 tax declaration, and used the average of such values to fix the just compensation.
While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function vestd in the RTC acting as a special agrarian court, the judge cannot abuse his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules.
We agree with the LBP that the double take up of the market value per tax declaration as a valuation factor completely destroys the rationale of the formula laid down by the DAR. GRANTED.
