Docstoc

SUPREME COURT DECISION _landvaluation_

Document Sample
SUPREME COURT DECISION _landvaluation_ Powered By Docstoc
					SUPREME COURT DECISION

         ON

LAND VALUATION CASES

    21 MARCH 2007
FERNANDO GABATIN, et al.

         versus

   LAND BANK OF THE
     PHILIPPINES

    G.R. NO. 148223
   November 25, 2004
          GABATIN v. LBP
   Gabatin, et. al. are registered owners
    of 3 parcel of RICE LAND in Sariaya,
    Quezon
   In 1989, the lots were placed under
    Operation     Land   Transfer    (OLT)
    pursuant to PD 27 and EO 228
   EPs covering the lots were issued to
    qualified FBs
          GABATIN v. LBP
   The formula used for valuation of RICE
    LANDS under PD 27 is:

       LV=2.5 x AGP x GSP

    LV-Land Valuation
    AGP- Average Gross Production
    GSP- Government Support Price
          GABATIN v. LBP
   The DAR and LBP fixed the GSP at
    P35.00 the price per cavan of palay in
    1972, when the lots were deemed taken
    for distribution

   AGP for 2 lots is: 94.64 cavans/hectare

   AGP for 1 lot is: 118.47 cavans/hectare
          GABATIN v. LBP
   The LOS rejected the valuation and
    filed a case for determination of just
    compensation with the RTC (SAC)

   The SAC fixed the GSP at P400, the
    current price per cavan of palay and
    NOT the GSP at the time of taking
            GABATIN v. LBP

   On appeal, the CA fixed the GSP at
    the time of the taking of the lands in
    1972 and NOT the GSP at the time of
    payment

   +6% interest p.a. compounded annually
    computed from the time of taking in
    October 1972 until full payment
         GABATIN v. LBP
ISSUE:

    Should the GSP per cavan of palay
 be based on the price at the time of
 taking or at the time of payment as
 ordered by the SAC?
         GABATIN v. LBP
ARGUMENTS:

 GABATIN, ET AL;

     * GSP was fixed at the time the PARAD
 decision was rendered NOT at the time of taking
 of the property (LBP v. CA)

      * The determination of the value of on
 interest payable in kind shall be appraised at the
 current price of the products or goods at the
 time and place of payment (Art. 1958 of the Civil
 Code)
         GABATIN v. LBP
ARGUMENTS

LAND BANK:

     *The determination of compensation for
 lands covered under PD 27 is reckoned from the
 time of the taking

     *21 October 1972 was the time of taking for
 this was when the LO was effectively deprived of
 possession and dominion over his landholding.
   LAND BANK OF THE
     PHILIPPINES

         versus

HON. ELI G. C. NATIVIDAD
          et al.

     G.R. No. 127198
      May 16, 2005
        LBP v. NATIVIDAD

   Caguiat, et al. (Los) filed a petition
    before     the     SAC     for    the
    determination of just compensation
    for their AGRICULTURAL LANDS in
    Arayat, Pampanga
        LBP v. NATIVIDAD
   The SAC ordered the DAR and LBP to pay the
    Los P30.00 per square meter as just
    compensation

   LBP’S ARGUMENT:
        *For purposes of agrarian reform the
    property was acquired on 21 October 1972,
    the effectivity date of PD 27, therefore just
    compensation should be based on the value of
    the property as of that time NOT at the time
    of possession in 1993
     LBP v. NATIVIDAD
SUPREME COURT RULING:

.The seizure of the landholding DID
  NOT take place upon the date of
  effectivity of PD 27 but would take
  effect on the payment of just
  compensation (OP v. CA)
        LBP v. NATIVIDAD
SUPREME COURT RULING:

   The agrarian reform process is still
    incomplete as the just compensation to be
    paid the Los has yet to be settled

   Considering the passage of RA 6657
    before the completion of this process, the
    just compensation determined and the
    process concluded under RA 6657

   RA 6657 is the applicable law with PD 27
    and EO 228 having only suppletory effect
    (Paris v. Alfeche)
        LBP v. NATIVIDAD
SUPREME COURT RULING:

    It would be inequitable to determine just
     compensation based on the guideline provided by
     PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR’s failure
     to determine the just compensation for a
     consideration length of time


    Just compensation should be the full and fair
     equivalent of the property taken from its owner
     by the expropriator
ANACLETO R. MENESES, et
          al.

         versus

SECRETARY OF AGARIAN
    REFORM, et. al.,

    G.R. No. 156304,
    October 23,2006
MENESES v. DAR SECRETARY
   Meneses, et al. are owners pro indivisio
    of an irrigated RICE LAND in San
    Miguel. Bulacan consisting of 60.8544
    hectares registered in the name of
    their grandparents

   On 21 October 1972, the property was
    distributed to FBs pursuant to PD 27

   In 1993, the Los filed a case for the
    determination and payment of just
    compensation with the SAC
MENESES v. DAR SECRETARY
ARGUMENTS

MENESES, ET AL.:
     *From the time the land was
 distributed to FBs in 1972 up to the
 filing of the complaint, no payment or
 rentals have been made, and titles were
 already issued to the FBs

     *The marked value of the property
 is P6M
MENESES v. DAR SECRETARY
ARGUMENTS
 FARMERS-BENEFICIARIES:
    *The land valuation establishing
 the AGP per hectare by the BCLP
 based on 3 normal crop years prior to
 PD 27 is in accordance with the
 guidelines and procedures on OLT
    *They have no unpaid rentals
MENESES v. DAR SECRETARY
ARGUMENTS

 LAND BANK:

    *The computation was obtained
 through the land valuation processes
 of the DAR on lands covered by PD
 27 and EO 228
      MENESES v. DAR
        SECRETARY
ARGUMENTS

 DAR SECRETARY:
    *The valuation of the property
 was pursuant to OLT under PD 27
 and the reckoning date should be at
 the time of the taking of the
 property, i.e., 21 October 1972
MENESES v. DAR SECRETARY

   The SAC ruled that since the property
    was taken from the Los on 21 October
    1972 under the DAR’s OLT pursuant to
    PD 27, just compensation must be based
    on the value of the property at the time
    of the taking

   The CA dismissed the appeal
         MENESES v. DAR
           SECRETARY
ISSUE:

     Whether or not Los are entitled to
 just compensation as provided for in RA
 6657 and the 1987 Constitution NOT
 PD 27 which was the basis for valuation
 made by the DAR and LBP of the land
 which was acquired in 21 October 1972?
MENESES v. DAR SECRETARY
 SUPREME COURT RULING:
            The seizure of the landholding DID NOT take
             place upon the date of effectivity of PD 27 but
             would take effect on the payment of just
             compensation (citing LBP v. Natividad)

            Events have rendered the applicability of PD 27
             inequitable. Thus, RA 6657 should apply


MENESES v. DAR SECRETARY
 THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE SAC FOR THE FINAL
 DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION
JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, et.
         al.

        versus

  LAND BANK OF THE
    PHILIPPINES

   G.R. No. 170220,
  November 20, 2006
            LUBRICA v. LBP
   Lubrica is an assignee of certain parcels of
    AGRICULTURAL LANDS located at Sta.
    Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro

   In 1972, 311+ hectares was placed under
    the land reform program, subdivided and
    distributed to FBs pursuant to PD 27 and
    EO 228

   DAR and LBP fixed the value of the land
    at P5.056 M, deposited in case and bonds
    in favor of Lubrica
         LUBRICA v. LBP
   Nenita Suntay-Tañedo and Emilio
    Suntay inherited from Federico
    Suntay 2 parcels of AGRICULTURAL
    LAND     in   Balansay, Mamburao,
    Occidental Mindoro

   128+ hectares was placed under the
    coverage of PD 27 and valued by the
    LBP at P1.512 M

   Los rejected the valuation of their
    properties
         LUBRICA v. LBP
   The       PARAD      fixed      the
    preliminary just compensation at:
           P51.8 M for 311 + hectares

           21.608   M for 128 +
            hectares
   LBP filed petitions for the
    judicial determination of just
    compensation with the SAC
           LUBRICA v. LBP
   LOS filed motions to deposit the
    preliminary compensation determined by
    the PARAD

   The SAC ordered the LBP to deposit the
    provision compensation as determined by
    the PARAD as there is no law which
    prohibits LBP to make a deposit pending
    the fixing of the final amount of just
    compensation
     LUBRICA v. LBP
   There is no reason for LBP to
    further delay the deposits
    considering that the DAR
    already took possession of the
    properties and distributed
    the same to FBs as early as
    1972
           LUBRICA v. LBP
   On MR, the CA held that the immediate
    deposit of the preliminary value of the
    expropriated properties is improper
    because it was erroneously computed.
    (citing Gabatin v. LBP)

   The value of the GSP should be computed
    at the time of legal taking of the land,
    that is, 21 October 1972 when the Los
    were effectivity deprived of ownership
    over their properties by virtue of PD 27
          LUBRICA v. LBP
   The PARAD incorrectly used the
    amounts of P500 and P300 which are
    the prevailing GSP for palay and corn
    at the time of payment instead of
    P35 and P31, the prevailing GSP at
    the time of taking in 1972
            LUBRICA v. LBP
SUPREME COURT RULING:

  •   The expropriation of the landholding DID NOT
      take place upon the date of effectivity of PD
      27 on 21 October 1972 but seizure would take
      effect on the payment of just compensation
      judicially determined (citing LBP v. Natividad,
      OP v. CA)

  •   Expropriation of landholdings covered by RA
      6657 takes place, NOT on the effectivity of
      the Act on 15 June 1988 but on the payment of
      just compensation
          LUBRICA v. LBP
SUPREME COURT RULING:
 •   It would be highly inequitable to
     compute the just compensation using
     the values at the time of the taking in
     1972 NOT at the time of payment
     considering that the government and
     the FBs have already benefited from
     the land although ownership thereof has
     not yet been transferred in their
     names.
          LUBRICA v. LBP
SUPREME COURT RULING:

      The transfer of possession or ownership of
       the land to the government is conditioned
       upon the receipt by the LO of the
       corresponding payment or deposit by the
       DAR of the compensation with an accessible
       bank.

UNTIL THEN, TITLE REMAINS
 WITH THE LANDOWNER
            LUBRICA v. LBP
SUPREME COURT RULING:
  •   The agrarian reform process is still incomplete
      as the just compensation to be paid the Los
      has yet to be settled

  •   Considering the passage of RA 6657 before
      the completion of this process, the just
      compensation determined and the process
      concluded under RA 6657

  •   RA 6657 is the applicable law with PD 27 and
      EO 228 having only suppletory effect (citing
      LBP v. Natividad, Paris v. Alfeche and LBP v.
      CA)
         LUBRICA v. LBP
SUPREME COURT RULING:
  •Section 18 of RA 6657 mandates that
  the LBP shall compensate to LO in such
  amount as may be agreed upon by the LO
  and the DAR and the LBP
               or
   as may be finally determined by the
court as just compensation for the land
        LUBRICA v. LBP
In determining just compensation, the
following factors should be considered
  *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
  *the assessment made by the government
assessors
  *the social and economic benefits
contributed     by     the    farmers   and
farmworkers and by the government to the
property
  *non payment of taxes or loans secured
from a government financing institution
(citing Section 17, RA 6657)
        LUBRICA v. LBP

SUPREME COURT RULING:

    *Section 17, RA 6657 was
converted into formula by the DAR
through AO 5, series of 1998:

     LV=(Capitalized Net Income x 0.6)
+ (Comparable Sales x 0.3) + (Market
Value per Tax Declaration x 0.1)
 APO FRUITS CORPORATION
And HIJO PLANTATION, INC.

          versus

  COURT OF APPEALS and
   LAND BANK OF THE
      PHILIPPINES
     G.R. NO. 164195
     February 6, 2007
     AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP
AFC and HPI are registered owners of 5
parcels of AGRICULTURAL LANDS located in
San Isidro, Tagum, Davao Province

* In 1995, AFC and HPI voluntarily offered for
sale to the government the 5 parcels of land

  AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP

In 1996, AFC and HPI received the NOLVA
from the      PARO     informing them of the
valuation of their lands as follows:

     AFC –P86.9M at P165K/hectare for 640+
                       hectares
     HPI – P164.478M for 814+ hectares
AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP
In 1998, AFC and HPI rejected the   valuation of
their parcels of land

DAR requested LBP to deposit the amounts
equivalent to the valuations in the names and for
the accounts of AFC and HPI

AFC withdrew the amount of P26.409 M while HPI
withdrew the amount of P45.481 M in cash from
LBP


AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP
The TCTs of AFC and HPI were cancelled and RP title
were issued

CLOAs were issued over the properties and distributed
to qualified FB
AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP
   AFC and HPI filed complaints for
    determination of just compensation with the
    DARAB

   Despite the lapse of 3 years, the DARAB
    failed and refused to render a decision on
    the valuation of the properties

   Hence, complaints for determination and
    payment of just compensation were filed by
    the AFC and HPI at the SAC
AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP
The SAC appointed Commissioner     to
determine  the proper valuation of the
properties

The SAC fixed the fair, reasonable and
just compensation at P1,383 B for
1338+hectares of land and standing crops
including interest equivalent to the market
interest rates aligned with the 91-day t-till
from the date of the taking in 9 December
1996 until full payment
AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP
On MR filed by the LBP, the SAC
modified its decision with regard to
the interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
computed from the time the complaint
was filed until the finality of the
decision becomes final and executory
until full payment

AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP

The CA granted LBP’s appeal and
nullified the orders of the SAC
AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP

SUPREME COURT RULING:

*The concept of just compensation
embraces      not   only    the    correct
determination of the amount to the paid to
the owners of the land, but also the
payment of the land within reasonable time
form its taking
     AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP
 SUPREME COURT RULING:

    •Without prompt payment compensation cannot be
    considered just inasmuch as the property owner is
    being made to suffer the consequences of being
    immediately deprived of his land while being made
    to wait for a decade or more before actually
    receiving the amount necessary to cope with his
    loss

   AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP
SUPREME COURT RULING:

    •It is settled that the property was taken on 9
    December 1996, when the Certificate of Title was
    issued sin favor of RP and the Certificates of
    Title of AFC and HPI were cancelled
 AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP
SUPREME COURT RULING:

•The SAC considered the valuation
submitted by the following:

Commissioner' Report – P85/sq.m. or
                    P850,000/ha

Cuervo Appraisal Report – P84.53/sq.m.
                           or
                          P845,300/has
AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP

The SAC considered the value of
   P103.33/sq.m. as the just
 compensation which is fair and
    reasonable to all parties
AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP

Factors considered by the SAC in determining
just compensation
   *1993 and 1994 Revision of Assessment and
   property Classification scheduled of market
   Values of Tagum City

   Lowest Values
      1993 –P100/sq.m. for 4th Class
           Residential Lot
     1994 -P80/sq.m. for Barangay
           Residential Lot
 AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP
    1994 – P130/sq.m. for Industrial
         Lots in a 3rd Class Barangay

AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP

  *Comparative   Sales of Adjacent Land

   High – P580/sq.m. in September 1996
    Low – P146.02/sq.m. in October 1997
  Other Sales:
      P530/sq. m. in January 1996 and December
       1995
      P148.64/s.q.m. in December 1996
AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP
   *Capitalized Income Approach

    P84.53/sq.m. – based on the use of
    the land and the income generated
               from the use

AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP
When the SAC arrived at the valuation of the
LO’s property taking into account its nature as
irrigated land, location along the highway,
market value, assessor's value and the volume
and value of its produces, such valuation is
considered in accordance with RA 6657
AFC and HPI v. CA and LBP



 THE SAC CORRECTLY DETERMINED
    THE JUST COMPENSATION
      DUE TO AFC AND HPI
THANK YOU VERY MUCH

MARAMING SALAMAT
       PO

DIOS TI AGNGINA

DAGHANG SALAMAT

 DIYOS MABALOS

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:8/28/2012
language:Unknown
pages:55