Title
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Cortez
Case
G.R. No. 210422
Decision Date
Sep 7, 2022
Spouses Cortez contested LBP's CARP land valuation; RTC adjusted reckoning date, but SC ruled it erroneous, mandating adherence to DAR guidelines and imposing interest for delayed payment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210422)

Relevant Dates and Legal Framework

The decision of the case was rendered on September 7, 2022, invoking the principles under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, considering the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657 (R.A. No. 6657), which governs agrarian reform and the determination of just compensation.

Background Facts of the Case

Spouses Cortez owned approximately 16.5415 hectares of coconut land located at Villahermosa, Daraga, Albay, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-45714. They offered the property for acquisition on January 5, 2000, prompting the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to issue a notice of coverage in April 2000. Following a field investigation in April 2000, it was determined that only 6.0004 hectares of their land was fit for acquisition.

Initial Compensation Assessment by LBP

On January 15, 2002, the Register of Deeds partially canceled the title and issued a new title under the name of the Republic of the Philippines for the 6.0004 hectares. LBP conducted a preliminary valuation of the land, utilizing the two-factor formula prescribed by DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1998, which resulted in a preliminary valuation of P106,542.98. However, this amount was rejected by the spouses Cortez, leading to a provisional deposit of the amount in December 2001.

DARAB and RTC Determinations

The dispute escalated to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), which assessed the compensation at P183,273.93. LBP contested this, leading to a jurisdictional petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City. In its ruling on December 21, 2011, the RTC established just compensation at P397,958.41, relying on a recalculated value based on the findings from a court-appointed commissioner, also referencing the relevant laws and administrative issuances.

Affirmation by the Court of Appeals

On July 9, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC ruling but did not explicitly address the issue regarding the modification of the reckoning dates used to determine production values and prices. This omission became a critical point in LBP's arguments against the RTC's decision.

LBP's Arguments and Contentions

LBP argued that the RTC improperly utilized the formula and presumptive date of taking prescribed under DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2010, which LBP claimed was inappropriate for acquisitions made under R.A. No. 6657. It contended that the RTC overstepped its jurisdiction by altering the established reckoning dates for determining relevant production data.

Court's Ruling on Discretion and Just Compensation

The ruling emphasized that while the RTC has the authority to determine just compensation, this must be done in accordance with established factors under R.A. No. 6657. Just compensation is defined as the fair equivalent of the property taken. The court reiterated that the final determination of just compensation is a judicial function that requires the courts to consider particular criteria laid out by the law and applicable administrative guidelines.

Compliance with DAR Issuances

The court established that the guidelines and formulas set forth by DAR are binding, and courts should adhere to them unless substantial justification for deviation is provided. In this case, the R

...continue reading

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