Title
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Navarro
Case
G.R. No. 196264
Decision Date
Jun 6, 2019
Lina Navarro contested DAR's low valuation of her 25% share in expropriated land under PD 27. Courts ruled her compensable area as 5.4501 hectares but remanded for proper valuation under RA 6657, with modified interest rates.
expropriated agricultural land
just compensation
tender of payment
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 196264)

Facts:

  • Parties and property
    • Lina B. Navarro, represented by her attorney-in-fact Felipe B. Capili, was the daughter of Antonio Buenaventura (Antonio) and the stepdaughter of Jo vita Buenaventura (Jovita).
    • Antonio and Jovita owned Lot No. 6561, Cad-174 of the Guianga Cadastre located at Catalunan Grande, Davao City.
    • The property was covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-2182 and was agricultural land with an area of 29.0772 hectares or 290,772 sq. m.
    • When Antonio died, Jovita was appointed administratix of Antonio’s estate in Special Proceeding Case No. 1920.
    • Lot No. 6561 was partitioned between Jovita and Lina, with Jovita receiving a seventy-five percent (75%) pro-indiviso share and Lina receiving a twenty-five percent (25%) pro-indiviso share.
  • Government expropriation and DAR valuation
    • In 1988, the government expropriated 21.890 hectares of Lot No. 6561 pursuant to its land transfer program under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27.
    • The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) valued the expropriated portion at P49,025.15, based on the Landowner-Tenant Production Agreement and Farmer’s Undertaking (LTPA-FU) executed between Jovita and the farmer/tenant-beneficiaries.
    • Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) concurred with the DAR valuation.
    • From P49,025.15, Jovita was paid P36,768.86.
    • Lina rejected a tender of P12,256.29 for her share.
  • Lina’s petition for fixing of just compensation
    • On August 9, 1995, Lina filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court acting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC) to fix just compensation against the DAR and the LBP in Civil Case No. 23,806-95.
    • Lina alleged that the expropriation resulted in Emancipation Patents (EPs) issued to tenant-farmers, specifically EP 221 to EP 234.
    • Lina alleged that the DAR valued the property at P0.17 per sq. m., which she claimed was “ridiculously low.”
    • Lina asserted that she rejected payment because it was confiscatory, unrealistic, and violated her rights to just compensation and due process.
    • Lina asked the SAC to consider comparable sales of lots similarly situated.
    • In its answer, LBP denied that the valuation was confiscatory and argued that the property was valued under PD 27 as amended by Executive Order (EO) No. 228.
    • LBP further argued that because the property was not physically subdivided between Jovita and Lina, Lina’s portion could not yet be identified for determining just compensation.
    • DAR maintained that its valuation was fair and just under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, and argued that Lina failed to exhaust administrative remedies, thus depriving the SAC of jurisdiction.
    • Lina replied that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies did not apply.
  • Stipulation of Facts before the SAC
    • The parties submitted a Stipulation of Facts on May 30, 2002, stating in material parts that:
      • Out of 29.0772 hectares, the portion covered by DAR under PD 27 was 21.890 hectares as shown by TCT Nos. EP-221 up to EP-234 (Exhibits “O” to “BB”).
      • Of the 21.890 hectares covered by DAR, 6.5006 hectares was paid directly by tenant-farmers to Jovita, representing part of her 75% share, covered by EP 229, EP 228, EP 221, and EP 222 (with specified areas under each EP).
      • The remaining 15.2999 hectares was paid by the government through the LBP, evidenced by a Deed of Assignment, Warranties, and Undertaking (DAWU).
      • The share of Lina for which just compensation should be fixed was stated as 5.4725 hectares (twenty-five percent of 21.890 hectares).
  • SAC Decision and valuation methodology
    • On June 17, 2002, the SAC ruled for Lina.
    • The SAC computed Lina’s 25% share out of the area it determined to be taken and distributed through EPs as equivalent to 58,675.50 sq. m.
    • The SAC declared that the “actual taking” happened on June 13, 1988, when OCT No. P-2182 was cancelled and EPs were issued.
    • The SAC noted that although LBP offered to pay Lina based on the value of the property as of March 11, 1993, the SAC proceeded to determine valuation.
    • In arriving at P10.00 per sq. m., the SAC used the market value approach and reasoned that it was a “fairer gauge.”
    • The SAC awarded P10.00 per sq. m. plus twelve percent (12%) per annum interest from June 13, 1988 until fully paid.
    • Lina filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied; the parties separately appealed.
  • Execution pending appeal and subsequent payment
    • While the appeal was still at the completion-of-records stage, Lina filed on November 27, 2003 before the CA a motion for execution pending appeal, citing her old age, sickness, and that fourteen years had already elapsed since taking.
    • The CA granted the motion and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution.
    • After submission for decision, LBP informed the CA of compliance and asserted it could pay only for 3.8249 hectares, stating it was twenty-five percent (25%) of 15.2999 hectares, and it tendered payment for that portion through a manager’s check delivered to the handling sheriff on January 19, 2007.
    • After the CA required simultaneous memoranda on hectarage, Lina argued that there was a typographical error in the total area under agrarian reform stated as 21.890 hectares and asserted the correct total area under the EPs was 21.8005 hectares.
    • Lina argued that, under Item No. 4 of the Stipulation of Facts, her compensable share should be based on 21.8005 hectares, resulting in 5.4501 hectares.
    • LBP argued that only 15.2999 hectares were paid by government, so Lina’s share should be based only on that portion since 6.5006 hectares was paid directly by tenants to Jovita; LBP insisted that Lina could recover the difference only from Jovita.
  • CA disposition
    • On June 25, 2009, the CA denied LBP’s appeal and affirmed the SAC’s valuation with modification.
    • The CA modified only the compensable area, directing that Lina’s total area entitlement was 5.4501 hectares only (not 5.8070 hect...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Hectarage and compensable area
    • Whether the CA erred in finding Lina’s compensable area (the area to which Lina was entitled as 25% pro-indiviso owner) as 5.4501 hectares.
  • Just compensation valuation methodology
    • Whether the SAC and CA erred in valuing just compensation at P10.00 per sq. m. without strict application of Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, as translated into the DAR’s basic formula under applicable DAR regulations.
    • Whether the market value approach used by the SAC constituted reversible error given the statutory valuation guidelines.
  • Interest on just compensation
    • Whether the CA erred in upholding the imposition of ...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

    ...continue reading
    Unlock Full Case Digest

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms