Land Bank of The Philippines

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MA.

AURORA [RITA] DEL ROSARIO AND


IRENE DEL ROSARIO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents Ma. Aurora and Irene del Rosario were the owners of a 39.1248-hectare agricultural
land in Barangay Oma-oma, Ligao City, Albay. In October 2000, a team composed of
representatives from petitioner (Land Bank), (DAR), the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO)
of Ligao City, and the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) recommended that 36.3168
hectares of the property be placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP)3 pursuant to Republic Act (RA)6657. The Land Bank then appraised the property at
Php34,994.36 per hectare based on the prescribed formula under DAR Administrative Order (DAR
AO) No. 5, s. of 1998. The DAR offered Php 1,172,369.21 as just compensation for the property but
respondents rejected it. This prompted the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) - Albay
to initiate summary administrative proceedings to determine the amount of just compensation for the
property. Meantime, respondents were paid the Php 1,172,369.21 provisional valuation. On
November 26, 2001, the Register of Deeds of Albay issued TCT No. T-126930 in the name of the
Republic. Under Decision dated February 18, 2004,8 the PARAD fixed just compensation at
Php6,766,000.00 or about Php201,959.90 per hectare, excluding the legal easement. On April 1,
2004, it denied the Land Bank's motion for reconsideration.Land Bank filed before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC)-Br. 3, Legazpi City, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, a petition for determination of
just compensation against respondents, the DAR Secretary, and the PARAD.By Decision dated
August 17, 2012,12 the trial court fixed the amount of just compensation at Php3,829,514.29 and
imposed twelve percent (12%) interest per annum on the portion of the amount which respondents
had not yet received, On October 25, 2012, the trial court denied the Land Bank's motion for
reconsideration.On appeal, the Land Bank faulted the trial court for allegedly ignoring the provisions
of RA 6657 and the pertinent DAR issuances in fixing the just compensation for the property. It
insisted on its own computation which purportedly adhered to legal standards.Through its assailed
decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision, subject to the modification that the
just compensation for the subject property shall be in the amount of P2,176,571.58.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err when it computed the amount of just compensation for the property at
Php2,176,571.58, plus twelve percent (12%) interest per annum?

RULING

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated July
31, 2013 and Resolution dated November 22, 2013 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION

ANALYSIS

Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to
intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent
to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample. In computing
the just compensation, the trial courts take into consideration the value of the land "at the time of the
taking" or when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his or her property, such as
when title is transferred to the Republic.
Here, the Court of Appeals correctly reckoned the time of taking as of 2001. Indeed, records bear
that: (i) the notice of coverage for the property was sent to respondents on February 20, 2001; (ii)
petitioner received the Claim Folder from the DAR on October 5, 2001; and (iii) TCT No. T-126930
was issued under the name of the Republic on November 26, 2001. This Court considers the date of
transfer of the property to the name of the Republic on November 26, 2001 as the time of taking.

CONCLUSION

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated July
31, 2013 and Resolution dated November 22, 2013 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION

You might also like