LBP Vs Escandor - Just Compensation
Uploaded by
Rogelio Rubellano IIILBP Vs Escandor - Just Compensation
Uploaded by
Rogelio Rubellano IIILBP Vs.
ESCANDOR
FACTS ISSUES RULING
Although the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is vested with primary jurisdiction under the Comprehensive
Respondents Glenn and Gerome Y. Escandor are the registered owners of four THE COURT OF APPEALS Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation for lands
parcels of agricultural land located in Tuban and Saliducon, Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR taken under the CARP, such determination is subject to challenge in the courts. The CARL vests in the RTCs, sitting
while respondents Emilio Escandor and Violeta Yap are the registered owners of two OF LAW IN ORDERING THE as Special Agrarian Courts, original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
parcels of agricultural land situated in Dalagbong and Bulacan in Malalag, Davao del REMAND OF THE CASE TO THE compensation. The jurisdictionof the RTCs is not any less original and exclusive because the question is first
Sur.[3] SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT passed upon by the DAR. The proceedings before the RTC are not a continuation of the administrative
WITHOUT THE determination. Additionally, the administrative orders providing for the guidelines in determining just compensation
In 1995, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the aforesaid lands under CORRESPONDING are mandatory and not mere guides that the RTC may disregard. Finally, although in some expropriation cases, the
compulsory acquisition of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) INSTRUCTION TO COMPUTE Court allowed the imposition of said interest, the same was in the nature of damages for delay in payment which
pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657. Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines THE JUST COMPENSATION IN in effectmakes the obligation on the part of the government one of forbearance. In this case, respondents are not
(LBP) through its Land Valuation Office conducted a field investigation and came up ACCORDANCE WITH THE entitled to interest on the final compensation considering that petitioner promptly deposited the compensation for their
with its valuations in the aggregate amount of P927,895.97 for the properties of Glenn VALUATION FACTORS UNDER lands after they rejected petitioners initial valuation
and Gerome Y. Escandor, and P849,611.01 for the properties of Emilio Escandor and SECTION 17 OF R.A. 6657 AS
Violeta Yap. TRANSLATED INTO A BASIC
FORMULA IN DAR
nce respondents rejected the LBPs valuation, the DAR instituted summary ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 6,
administrative proceedings for the determination of just compensation while petitioner SERIES OF 1992, AND AS HELD
deposited in the name of respondents the amount of compensation in cash and IN THE CASE OF SPS. BANAL,
bonds.[5] In the meantime, respondents titles were cancelled and emancipation G.R. NO. 143276 (JULY 20, 2004).
patents were issued to farmer-beneficiaries. After due proceedings, the DAR
sustained the valuation made by petitioner.
Petitioner filed a petition for review before the CA arguing that the SAC gravely erred THE COURT OF APPEALS
in fixing the just compensation for the properties of respondents in the aggregate COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR
amount of P4,590,000.00, in clear violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 and its OF LAW IN ORDERING THE
implementing regulations, particularly DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 06, series of PAYMENT OF INTEREST
1992, as amended by DAR AO No. 11, series of 1994. CONSIDERING THAT THE MODE
OF COMPENSATION IN
he CA held that Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 does not limit the sole basis in computing just AGRARIAN REFORM IS CLEARLY
compensation to the income method nor does it foreclose the use of market value PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION
approach. The factors enumerated therein merely serve as a guideline for the court which is 18 OF R.A. 6657
not precluded from considering all, some or only one of those factors in computing just
compensation. While the LBP and the DAR may determine just compensation, such
determination is merely preliminary and administrative, not binding or conclusive upon the
agrarian court. The CA also declared that adopting the mathematical computation
fixed by the Administrative Order would violate the landowners right to due
process. The landowner must be given the opportunity to prove the real value of his
property and to disprove the valuation of the expropriating agency.[12]
The CA further ruled that the computation of just compensation should be made at the
time of the taking, which in this case should be in 1997 when the DAR took the lands
and cancelled respondents titles thereto. Hence, there is a need to recompute the
amount of just compensation using as basis the value of the lands in 1997 and
reflecting the formula in arriving at the valuation. Lastly, though not mentioned in the
SAC decision nor raised in the petition, the CA stated that the final compensation must
include interest to temper the prejudice caused to the landowner on account of the
delay in his payment.[13]
