Title
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Chico
Case
G.R. No. 168453
Decision Date
Mar 13, 2009
An 8.3-hectare rice land in Nueva Ecija was taken under agrarian reform without prior notice or just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled P200,000/hectare as fair compensation under R.A. 6657, deleting imposed interest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 168453)

Applicable Law

The applicable law includes Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which governs the determination of just compensation for agricultural lands expropriated for agrarian reform purposes.

Background and Proceedings

In an Amended Petition for Fixing Just Compensation, Hernando T. Chico claimed that his property was taken without proper notice or payment of just compensation under the agrarian reform program, specifically after the issuance of Emancipation Patents to farmer-beneficiaries in 1994. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) contended that proper notification was given and a compensation rate of P10,000 per hectare was agreed under a Landowner-Tenant Production Agreement (LTPA) executed between Chico and the farmer-beneficiaries. LBP maintained it had no obligation to cover the compensation costs due to the absence of a valid land transfer claim endorsed by the DAR.

Ruling of the Special Agrarian Court

On May 17, 2004, the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) concluded that the agreement of P10,000 per hectare could not be supported without evidence of mutual consent and noted that such a valuation seemed insufficient considering the property was a prime agricultural lot. Consequently, the SAC ordered the DAR and LBP to pay Chico P1,860,540.00 as just compensation, including 12% legal interest annually.

Motion to Correct Clerical Errors

An ex-parte motion was subsequently filed by Chico, leading to the SAC correcting the compensation amount to P1,660,540.00 for 8.3027 hectares, while maintaining the same interest terms. LBP's motion for reconsideration was denied as the SAC found no merit in their arguments regarding the means of determining just compensation.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On March 17, 2005, the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the SAC's ruling, ruling against the LTPA's probative value due to lack of evidence supporting its existence and considering the petition for fixing just compensation. The CA reasoned that R.A. No. 6657 should govern cases of just compensation instead of prior laws like Presidential Decrees Nos. 27 or 228, although it did subtract prior lease payments collected from the farmer-beneficiaries as advances against compensation owed. The CA revised the compensation value to P1,482,340.00 and maintained a legal interest rate of 6% annually from the date of taking until full payment.

Grounds for the Petition

LBP's petition to the Supreme Court raised multiple issues, including the lack of a land transfer claim necessary for processing compensation, the erroneous application of R.A. No. 6657 over prior laws, and the inappropriate interest rate assigned to the compensation award.

Supreme Court's Position

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the absence of claim folders or acknowledgments from the DAR, decided t

...continue reading

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