Title
Supreme Court
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Kumassie Plantation Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 177404
Decision Date
Dec 4, 2009
Compulsory CARP acquisition of KPCI's 457-hectare land; SC ruled DAR valuation formula binding, remanded for proper computation including cacao production data.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 177404)

Background of the Case

This resolution arises from KPCI's motion for reconsideration regarding a prior decision issued on June 25, 2009, which granted LBP's petition and reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals that had established a higher valuation for the land at P100,000.00 per hectare. The Supreme Court approved LBP’s valuation of P41,792.94 per hectare, which was deemed consistent with the applicable formula for determining just compensation under agrarian reform laws.

Legal Framework

The relevant law governing this case is Republic Act No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, along with the implementing guidelines provided in Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by DAO No. 11, Series of 1994. The court emphasized that these guidelines are not mere suggestions but mandatory rules to follow in calculating just compensation.

KPCI's Arguments for Reconsideration

KPCI challenged the exclusion of cacao production in LBP’s computation of just compensation, arguing that the assessment must account for all crops on the land, regardless of who cultivated them. KPCI contended that the determination of just compensation is primarily a judicial function, stating that the DAR valuation formula should not unduly bind the court.

Court's Analysis of Valuation Methodology

The Supreme Court noted that the LBP incorrectly excluded the figures related to cacao production from their computation of the Capitalized Net Income (CNI) of KPCI’s land. The court highlighted that Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAO No. 6 necessitate taking into account all agricultural yields to arrive at an accurate valuation.

Inclusion of Cacao Production

The court pointed out that the LBP had claimed a lack of production data for cacao, which cannot justify its exclusion from the valuation calculation. The court indicated that LBP could have pursued various sources for the necessary information to include cacao production in its assessment. The ruling stressed that the presence of cacao, whether planted by the landowner or lessee, contributes to the overall productivity and value of the land.

Memorandum of Agreement and Compensation

The court considered a memorandum from LBP, dated July 25, 2000, which suggested an upward adjustment to land value to incorporate cacao sales. However, while the document indicated that LBP recognized the need to include cacao production, the Supreme Court refrained from accepting the amount stated as just compensation due to a lack of clarity in LBP's computations.

Remand to Lower Court

In light of LBP’s erroneous exclusion of cacao production values and insufficient evidence presented to provide a clear computation of just compensation, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the proper calculation of compensation based on the formula established in the applicable administrative orders. The RTC is tasked with a comprehensive reevaluati

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.