Title
Supreme Court
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Santiago, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 182209
Decision Date
Oct 3, 2012
Dispute over just compensation for land acquired under agrarian reform; Supreme Court ruled RA No. 6657 applies, mandating 12% interest for delayed payment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 182209)

Legal Framework and Historical Background

LBP serves as the financial intermediary under Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. The land was evaluated for compensation based on a formula established by both Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228. These laws stipulate that land valuation shall be determined by considering the average harvest over preceding years, with compensation rates tied to government support prices set in 1972.

Initial Valuation and Payment to Heirs

The LBP and DAR determined the just compensation for the property using the mandated formula, concluding that the compensation should amount to One Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-Two Pesos (₱135,482.12). This amount was reserved for the heirs and later released in 1998 following prior judicial decisions that validated LBP's compensation computations.

Petition for Appraisal of Just Compensation

Following this payment, Emiliano R. Santiago, Jr. filed a petition for the approval and appraisal of just compensation, asserting that the figure ascribed by LBP was inadequate. Santiago claimed the compensation method should utilize the 1998 prevailing government support price (GSP) per cavan of palay, which he argued should be calculated at ₱400.00, rather than the ₱35.00 utilized in earlier assessments.

Regional Trial Court Decisions

The Regional Trial Court’s Special Agrarian Court (SAC) initially sided with Santiago, mandating LBP to pay over a million pesos as just compensation, including legal and incremental interest. Subsequent motions from both parties spurred a reevaluation of the compensation rate and interest, reflecting ongoing disputes about appropriate compensation frameworks following the enactment of RA 6657.

Appeal and Court of Appeals Ruling

LBP sought to challenge the rulings of the SAC, contending that the court deviated from established formulae under Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 in its assessment of just compensation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled against LBP, affirming that Santiago was entitled to just compensation based on the higher GSP while ruling out incremental interest due to the application of a higher base.

Supreme Court’s Decision on Just Compensation

The Supreme Court of the Philippines reviewed the decisions and sided with the application of Republic Act No. 6657 in determining just compensation, emphasizing that the law mandates a broader evaluation formula than earlier decrees. It determined that since compensation calculations were still pending after the requirement of RA 6657 was enacted, just compensation should be computed based on current market factors and economic conditions.

Legal Interest and Compounding Dispute

The Court addressed the ap

...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.