Title
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Chu
Case
G.R. No. 192345
Decision Date
Mar 29, 2017
Land valuation dispute under agrarian reform laws; CA erred in disregarding RA 6657 guidelines, remanded to RTC for proper computation of just compensation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192345)

Factual Antecedents

The respondents were the registered owners of two agricultural parcels in San Antonio, Pilar, Sorsogon. The first parcel, with an area of 14.9493 hectares, was acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27), while the second parcel of 7.7118 hectares was acquired under Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657). LBP initially valued the first parcel at P177,657.98 and the second at P263,928.57, but the respondents rejected these valuations. Consequently, summary administrative proceedings were conducted before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD).

Ruling of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator

On April 11, 2003, the PARAD issued two separate decisions that recomputed the valuations proposed by LBP, determining the RA 6657-acquired property’s value at P1,542,360.00 based on nearby comparable sales and other factors. The PD 27-acquired land was valued at P983,663.94 using a specific formula that considered average gross production and actual support prices.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

LBP, dissatisfied with PARAD's decisions, filed a Petition for Determination of Just Compensation with the RTC of Sorsogon City. On September 21, 2005, the RTC set the just compensation for the RA 6657-acquired property at P2,313,478.00 and for the PD 27-acquired land at P1,155,173.00. The RTC ruling took into account the valuation factors and the economic potentials of the properties, leading to the awards based on their agricultural production capabilities.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA)

Upon appeal, the CA modified the RTC’s decision. It affirmed the formula used by PARAD for the PD 27-acquired property but corrected the actual support price to P35, in accordance with the relevant executive orders. For the RA 6657-acquired property, the CA proposed a different formula that included factors such as capitalized net income and the market value per tax declaration. This adjustment was necessary, as the court observed that LBP failed to account for the rising land values due to economic developments in the area.

Issues Presented

LBP raised several arguments against the CA’s decision, asserting that it disregarded valuation factors set forth under RA 6657 and mandated the remand of the case for re-evaluation of the PD 27-acquired land. The LBP further contended that the appellate court's imposition of interest was unwarranted.

LBP’s Argument

LBP argued that the CA improperly relied on external factors, asserting the primacy of the statutory framework in valuing the land. It sought the application of revised regulations and the latest valuation methodologies that were compelled by subsequent enactments affecting the agrarian reform laws.

Our Ruling

The Court partially granted LBP's petition, underscoring that the just compensation determination must adhere strictly to the provisions of Section 17 of RA 6657, especially considering amendments in RA 9700. Given the conflicting evaluations between lower courts, members of the Court found it pertinent to remand the case to the RTC for a thorough evaluation of just compensation, supported by adequate evidence.

Guidelines on Re

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.