Pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (RA 6657, as

amended), the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) compulsorily acquired

32.8363 hectares of agricultural land situated in Patag, Irosin, Sorsogon (the
EN BANC
LAND BANK OF THEPHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,

property) owned by respondents Luz Lim and Purita Lim Cabochan.[3] Petitioner
G.R. No. 171941
Present:

- versus -

LUZ LIM and

CABOCHAN,

PURITA

LIM

Respondents.

PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
GARCIA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR., and
NACHURA, JJ.

Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)[4] computed the value of the property
at P725,804.21.[5]

Respondents rejected petitioners valuation. Thus, pursuant to Section

16(d) of RA 6657, as amended, a summary administrative proceeding was conducted
before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) to determine the
valuation of the property.[6] The PARAD initially valued it at P1,174,659.60 but
later reduced the amount to P725,804.21 upon motion of petitioner.[7]

Dissatisfied with the PARADs decision, respondents filed on January 26,

1998 a petition for

determination of just compensation

with the

RTC

of Sorsogon where they prayed for a compensation of at least P150,000 per hectare,
or an aggregate amount of P4,925,445.[8] The case proceeded to trial, with the RTC

Promulgated:

August 2, 2007
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DECISION

appointing each partys nominee as commissioner.[9]

By Report submitted on December 9, 1998, Commissioner Florencio C.

Dino II, respondents nominee, valued the property at P1,548,000.[10] Commissioner
Jesus D. Empleo, petitioners nominee, submitted his own report on February 8,
1999, valuing the property at P947,956.68.[11]

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Assailed by petition for review on certiorari are the Court of Appeals
Decision of November 11, 2005

[1]

By September

14,

2001 Decision,[12] Branch

52

of

affirming the December 21, 2001 Order of the

the Sorsogon RTC adopted the valuation submitted by respondents commissioner

Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon, Branch 52 fixing the valuation for

(P1,548,000). Both parties moved for reconsideration, and by December 21, 2001

purposes of just compensation of respondents property, and Resolution of March 13,

Order,[13] the RTC reconsidered its earlier decision and increased the valuation

2006

[2]

denying petitioners motion for reconsideration of said decision.

to P2,232,868.40, ratiocinating as follows:

The ground relied upon by the Plaintiff[s] is that the

Award was based on the Report only of [Commissioner Dino]
premised on taxation purposes and it did not consider the fact that
in 1986 the same land or part of it was paid by the defendant Land
Bank the amount ofP68,549.00 per hectare when the rate of
exchange between the peso and a dollar was only 22 pesos per
dollar.

the evidence presented with respect to sales in the surrounding

nearby areas and the trial court did not even consider other factors
such as location, neighborhood, utility, size and time element. The
compensation should have been higher but the plaintiffsappellees chose no longer to appeal because they alleged that they
were too old to further any appeals and they wanted the money as
soon as possible and they wanted an end to the litigation as soon as
possible a wish thwarted by the appeal by the Land Bank.

xxxx
xxxx
x x x [T]his Court finds that indeed the decision x x x did
not take into consideration the comparable selling price of the
adjoining land, which according to the plaintiff during Pre-trial, it
was admitted by the defendants Land Bank and the DAR and the
same was already stated in the findings of fact of the Court in its
decision x x x, that the property subject of the acquisition is
situated at Patag, Irosin, Sorsogon like the property of Roger Lim,
brother of the plaintiff and the same was acquired by the defendant
Land Bank and paid as just compensation in the amount
of P68,549.01 per hectare. These facts were admitted by the
defendants Land Bank and DAR x x x.
xxxx
After due consideration of the Motion for
Reconsideration, and taking into consideration the Plaintiffs [sic]
Commissioners Report submitted to the Court as well as his
testimony and the admission of the defendants x x x, and also other
factors such as location, neighborhood, utility, size and the time
element involved, the price paid by the defendant Land Bank of the
property of Roger Lim, brother of the herein plaintiffs in the
amount of P68,000.00 per hectare is adopted which should be the
basis for the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the
owner, so that for the area of 32.8363 hectares subject of
acquisition, the Court hereby fixes the total price in the amount
of P2,232,868.40. (Underscoring supplied)

By Decision[14] of November 11, 2005, the Court of Appeals denied

When the evidence pointed preponderantly to the fact that

the trial courts computation of just compensation had already been
regarded by the parties as drastically low, any appeal by the Land
Bank to such already drastically low figures would be
suspect. (Underscoring supplied)

The appellate court in fact ordered petitioner to pay legal interest of 12% on
the P2,232,868.40 from the time of the taking of the property until actual payment,
and double costs.

Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Resolution of March

13, 2006,[15] hence, this petition,[16] petitioner contending that:
A.
The amount of P2,232,868.40 which the Court of
Appeals fixed as the just compensation of the acquired property
consisting of 32.8363 hectares, is in clear violation of Section 17
of RA 6657, DAR AO No. 11, series of 1994, and the Supreme
Court ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Vicente
Banal and Leonidas Arenas-Banal.[17]
B.
The Court of Appeals seriously erred in ordering
the payment of interest on the compensation, at 12% per
annum reckoned from the time of taking up to the time of actual
payment.[18]

petitioners appeal and ruled that:

The decision of the trial court should be affirmed because
the appeal of the defendant appellant Land Bank is frivolous. The
compensation fixed at P68,000 per hectare or Php2,232,868.40 for
the entire 32.8363 hectares is not reasonable nor just considering

C.
The Court of Appeals likewise erred in ordering
LBP to pay double costs.[19] (Underscoring supplied)

The threshold issue is whether the RTC erred in simply adopting the price

institution on the said land, shall be considered

as additional factors to determine its valuation.

previously paid by petitioner for the land of respondents brother, and dispensing
with the formula prescribed by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of
1992(DAR AO 6-92), as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 11, series

These factors have been translated into a basic formula in

[DAR AO 6-92], as amended by [DAR AO 11-94], issued pursuant
to the DAR's rule-making power to carry out the object and
purposes of R.A. 6657, as amended.

of 1994 (DAR AO 11-94).

The formula stated in [DAR AO 6-92], as amended, is
as follows:
Petitioner answers the issue in the affirmative, contending that
consideration of the valuation factors under Section 17 of RA 6657 and the formula

LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)

LV = Land Value
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration

under DAR AO 11-94 is mandatory insofar as lands acquired under RA 6657 are
concerned.[20] On the other hand, respondents opine otherwise, contending that
Section 17 is merely a guide, the courts having recourse to other means of
determining just compensation, it being a judicial function.[21]

Petitioners position impresses.

The above formula shall be used if all the three factors

are present, relevant and applicable.
A.1

In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Spouses Banal,[22] this Court underscored

the mandatory nature of Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAR AO 6-92, as amended

When the CS factor is not present and CNI and

MV are applicable, the formula shall be:
LV = (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)

xxxx

by DAR AO 11-94, viz:

In
determining
just
compensation, the
RTC
is required to consider several factors enumerated in Section 17 of
R.A. 6657, as amended, thus:
Sec. 17. Determination of Just
Compensation.
In
determining
just
compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land,
the current value of like properties, its nature,
actual use and income, the sworn valuation by
the owner, the tax declarations, and the
assessment made by government assessors shall
be considered. The social and economic benefits
contributed
by
the
farmers
and
the farmworkers and by the Government to the
property, as well as the non-payment of taxes or
loans secured from any government financing

While the determination of just compensation involves

the
exercise
of
judicial
discretion,
however, such
discretion must be discharged within the bounds of the law. Here,
the RTC wantonly disregarded R.A. 6657, as amended,
and its implementing rules and regulations. ([DAR AO 6-92], as
amended by [DAR AO 11-94]).
xxxx
WHEREFORE, x x x. Civil Case No. 6806 is
REMANDED to the RTC x x x. The trial judge is directed to
observe strictly the procedures specified above in determining
the proper valuation of the subject property. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied; citations omitted)

And in LBP v. Celada,[23] this Court set aside the valuation fixed by the

The second and more important issue is the correct valuation of the

RTC of Tagbilaran, which was based solely on the valuation of neighboring

property. Petitioner asserts that the valuation of P947,956.68 computed by

properties, because it did not apply the DAR valuation formula. The Court

Commissioner Empleo is based on DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94,

explained:

and should, therefore, be upheld.[24] On this score, the petition fails.

While [the RTC] is required to consider the acquisition

cost of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature,
actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax
declaration and the assessments made by the government assessors
to determine just compensation, it is equally true that these factors
have been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to
its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. As the
government agency principally tasked to implement the agrarian
reform program, it is the DAR'sduty to issue rules and regulations
to carry out the object of the law. [The] DAR [Administrative
Order] precisely "filled in the details" of Section 17, R.A. No.
6657 by providing a basic formula by which the factors mentioned
therein may be taken into account. The [RTC] was at no liberty
to disregard the formula which was devised to implement the
said provision.
It is elementary that rules and regulations issued by
administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted
to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great
respect. Administrative issuances partake of the nature of a
statute and have in their favor a presumption of legality. As such,
courts cannot ignore administrative issuances especially when, as
in this case, its validity was not put in issue. Unless an
administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option
but to apply the same. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied;
citations omitted)

The pertinent portions of Item II of DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR

AO 11-94, provide:
A.

There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands

covered by [Voluntary Offer to Sell] or [Compulsory
Acquisition] regardless of the date of offer or coverage of
the claim:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
Where:
LV = Land Value
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market
Value
per
Tax
Declaration
The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are
present, relevant and applicable.
A.1

LV = (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)

xxxx
A.5

For purposes of this Administrative Order, the

date of receipt of claimfolder by LBP from DAR
shall mean the date when the claimfolder is
determined by the LBP to be complete with all
the required documents and valuation inputs duly
verified and validated, and is ready for final
computation/processing.

A.6

The basic formula in the grossing-up of valuation

inputs such as x x x Market Value per Tax
Declaration (MV) shall be:

Consequently, as the amount of P2,232,868 adopted by the RTC in its

December 21, 2001 Order was not based on any of the mandatory formulas
prescribed in DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94, the Court of Appeals
erred when it affirmed the valuation adopted by the RTC.

When the CS factor is not present [25] and CNI and

MV are applicable, the formula shall be:

Grossed-up

Valuation input x

Valuation
Input

Regional
Consumer
Price Index (RCPI)
Adjustment Factor

SP =

The RCPI Adjustment Factor shall refer to the

ratio of RCPI for the month issued by the
National Statistics Office as of the date when
the claimfolder (CF) was received by LBP from
DAR for processing or, in its absence, the most
recent available RCPI for the month issued prior
to the date of receipt of CF from DAR and the
RCPI
for
the
month
as
of
the
date/effectivity/registration of the valuation
input. Expressed in equation form:

RCPI
Adjustment
Factor

B.

RCPI for the Month as of

the Date of Receipt
of Claimfolder by
LBP
from DAR or the Most
recent RCPI for the Month
Issued Prior to the Date of
Receipt of CF
RCPI for
the
Month
Issued as of the Date
/ Effectivity / Registration
of the Valuation Input

CO = Cost of Operations
Whenever the cost of operations
could not be obtained or
verified, an assumed net
income rate (NIR) of 20%
shall be used. Landholdings
planted to coconut which are
productive at the time of
offer/coverage shall continue
to use the 70% NIR. DAR and
LBP shall continue to conduct
joint industry studies to
establish the applicable NIR
for each crop covered under
CARP.

Capitalized Net Income (CNI) This shall refer to the

difference between the gross sales (AGP x SP) and total
cost of operations (CO) capitalized at 12%.
Expressed in equation form:
CNI = (AGP x SP) CO
.12
Where:

.12 =

CNI = Capitalized Net Income

AGP

= Latest
available
12months gross
production
immediately
preceding
the date of offer in case of
VOS or date of notice of
coverage in case of CA.

The average of the latest

available 12-months selling
prices prior to the date of
receipt of the claimfolder by
LBP for processing, such
prices to be secured from the
Department of Agriculture
(DA) and other appropriate
regulatory bodies or, in their
absence, from the Bureau of
Agricultural
Statistics. If
possible, SP data shall be
gathered from the barangay or
municipality
where
the
property is located. In the
absence thereof, SP may be
secured within the province or
region.

Capitalization Rate

xxxx
D.

In the computation of Market Value per Tax Declaration

(MV), the most recent Tax Declaration (TD) and
Schedule of Unit Market Value (SMV) issued prior to
receipt of claimfolder by LBP shall be considered. The
Unit Market Value (UMV) shall be grossed up from the
date of its effectivity up to the date of receipt

of claimfolder by LBP from DAR for processing, in

accordance with item II.A.A.6. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

of the registration of the most recent Tax Declaration and Schedule of Unit Market
Value[31] issued prior to receipt of claimfolder by LBP. Consistent with the earlier
discussion, the applicable RCPIs should therefore be dated on or before 1996.

Thus, in computing Capitalized Net Income (CNI), the Average Gross

Production (AGP) of the latest available 12 months immediately preceding the date
of notice of coverage, and the average Selling Price (SP) of the latest available 12

However, Commissioner Empleo instead used the RCPIs for December

1998 and January 1997 in computing the RCPI Adjustment Factor, [32] again, contrary
to DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94.

months prior to the date of receipt of the claimfolder by LBP for processing, should
be used.

Parenthetically, Commissioner Empleo testified[33] that his

utations

While both dates are not indicated in the records, the date of notice of
coverage would have to be sometime prior to February 1994, which is the date of the
Field Investigation Report,[26] because under DAR Administrative Order No. 9,
series of 1990,[27] as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993,

1998.

[34]

1996,

the

year

the

property

was

distributed

to

the

agrarian

reform

beneficiaries,[28] because land distribution is the last step in the procedure prescribed
by the said administrative orders. Thus, the data for the AGP should pertain to a

based

on

DAR

Administrative

Order

No.

5,

series

of

However, as this administrative order took effect only on May 11, 1998,

the applicable valuation rules in this case remain to be those prescribed by DAR AO
6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94.

the field investigation is conducted after the notice of coverage is issued to the
landowner. Also, the claimfolder would have been received by LBP on or before

were

comp

In any event, even if the 1998 valuation rules were applied, the data for the
AGP would still pertain to a period prior to February 1994, [35] the revised reference
date being the date of the field investigation, while the data for the SP and
theRCPIs would still pertain to 1996 or earlier, there being no substantial revisions in
their reference dates.

period prior to February 1994, while the data for the SP should pertain to 1996 or
earlier.

Finally, while the Field Investigation Report[36] shows that the

However, Commissioner Empleo instead used the available data prior to

[January 1999, the] date of [his ocular inspection][29] for the AGP, and the
[a]verage selling price for the period January 1998 to December 1998 [30] for the
SP, contrary to DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94.

representatives of petitioner, the DAR, and the Barangay Agrarian Reform

Committee, all observed that, except for seven hectares, the whole area of the
property

was

planted

with

coconut intercropped with

abaca

or vice-versa,

Commissioner Empleo did not take this into account in his computation, contrary to
DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94 which provides that the
[t]otal income shall be computed from the combination of crops actually produced

Secondly, the Regional Consumer Price Index (RCPI) Adjustment Factor,

which is used in computing the market value of the property, is the ratio of the RCPI
for the month when the claimfolder was received by LBP, to the RCPI for the month

on the covered land whether seasonal or permanent.[37]

For all the above reasons, the valuation asserted by petitioner must be
rejected.

with dispatch the just compensation due respondents strictly in accordance with the
procedures specified above.

The Court notes that this case has been pending for almost a decade, and

SO ORDERED.

commiserates with respondents. However, while the Court wants to write finis to
this case by computing the just compensation due to respondents, the evidence on

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice

record is not sufficient for the Court to do so in accordance with DAR AO 6-92, as
amended by DAR AO 11-94.
WE CONCUR:
The Court is thus compelled to remand the case for determination of the
valuation of the property by the RTC which is mandated to consider the factors
provided under above quoted Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, as translated into
the formula prescribed in DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

[38]

Furthermore, upon its own initiative, or at the instance of any of the parties,
the RTC may again appoint one or more commissioners to examine, investigate and
ascertain facts relevant to the dispute including the valuation of properties, and to file

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice

CONSUELO YNARES- SANTIAGO

Associate Justice

a written report thereof with the RTC.[39]

The amount determined by the RTC would be the basis of the interest
income on the cash and bond deposits due respondents from the time of the taking
of
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
the property up to the time of actual payment of just compensation. [40]

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

WHEREFORE, the November 11, 2005 Decision and March 13, 2006
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 73881 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.

Civil Case No. 98-6432 is REMANDED to the court of origin, Branch 52

of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, which is directed to determine

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Associate Justice

RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice

[4]

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice

DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

[15]

[16]
[17]

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO
B. NACHURA
Associate Justice

[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]

[24]
[25]

CERTIFICATION
[26]
[27]

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the

[28]
[29]

conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case

[30]
[31]

was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]

[1]

[2]

[3]

CA rollo, pp. 98 to 107. Penned by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas with the concurrence of
Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.
Id. at 159-160. Also penned by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas with the concurrence of
Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.
Records, pp. 1-2.

Executive Order No. 405, dated June 14, 1990, vests the Land Bank of the Philippines the primary
responsibility to determine the land valuation and compensation for all private lands covered by R.A.
6657, as amended. Vide Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132767, January
18, 2000, 322 SCRA 139, 145.
Rollo, p. 15.
Id. at 16.
Records, p. 2.
Id. at 1-4. Docketed as Civil Case No. 98-6432.
Id. at 31.
Id. at 47-50.
Id. at 57-59.
Id. at 141-46-a.
Id. at 155-157.
CA rollo, pp. 98-107. Penned by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas with the concurrence of
Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.
Id. at 159-160. Also penned by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas with the concurrence of
Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.
Rollo, pp. 9-41.
Id. at 20.
Id. at 31.
Id. at 36.
Id. at 20-31.
Id. at 136-137.
G.R. No. 143276, July 20, 2004, 434 SCRA 543, 549-554.
G.R. No. 164876, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 495, 505-507, citing LBP v. Spouses Banal, G.R. No.
143276, July 20, 2004, 434 SCRA 543.
Rollo, p. 27.
None of the sales transactions proffered by respondents as Comparable Sales qualify as such under
DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94, which requires, inter alia, that such sales
transactions: (a) be executed and registered within the period of January 1, 1985 to June 15, 1988;
(b) involve land with similar topography and use; and (c) involve land whose area is at least ten
percent (10%) of the area being acquired.
Records, p. 123.
Revised Rules Governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell
and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to RA 6657.
TSN, March 15, 2000, p. 3.
Records, p. 57. Vide also TSN February 14, 2001, p. 4.
Id. at 57, 59.
The Tax Declaration and Schedule of Unit Market Value being the relevant valuation inputs with
respect to market value.
Records, pp. 57, 58.
TSN, February 14, 2001, p. 7.
Which superseded DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94.
Records, p. 123. The date of the Field Investigation Report.
Ibid.
Item II B.5.
Supra note 22 at 554.
Section 58, RA 6657, as amended.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, G.R. No. 140160, January 13, 2004, 419 SCRA 67, 81.