G.R. No. 177607 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. PACITA AGRICULTURAL MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, AGNES CUENCA AND ITS MANAGER, HON. MARCELO AGUIRRE, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: The [herein petitioner], Land Bank of the Philippines, is hereby ordered to pay [herein respondent] for the remaining 26.2514 hectares of rice land taken under Presidential Decree No. 27 in October 1972, valuated at 112.5 cavans of 50 kilo palay per sack per hectare, and computed in accordance with Executive Order No. 228, plus [an] increment of six percent (6%) interest and compounded per annum effective October 21, 1972 until fully paid; [23] The rights acquired by the farmer beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be recognized and respected; and No pronouncement as to costs. [24] Respondent filed a Motion for Clarificatory Order, [25] alleging that the Decision of the SAC merely provided for a formula to be used in determining the value of the land but did not provide the exact amount therefor. Acting thereon, the SAC issued a Clarificatory Order [26] on 22 June 2000, with the following decree: WHEREFORE, par. (1) of the dispositive portion of the DECISION dated May 18, 2000, (sic) is hereby amended to read as follows: 1) The [herein petitioner], Land Bank of the Philippines, is hereby ordered to pay [herein respondent] for the remaining 28.2514 hectares of rice land taken under Presidential Decree No. 27 on October 21, 1972 valuated at 112.5 cavans of 50-kilo palay per sack per hectare and computed in accordance with Executive Order No. 228, plus increment of six (6%) percent interests (sic) and compounded per annum effective October 21, 1972 until fully paid, and with the present accrued amount of P506,649.28. Unsatisfied, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration [27] of the SAC Decision dated 18 May 2000 and Order dated 22 June 2000, but the same was denied by the SAC in an Order [28] dated 20 September 2001. Respondent, thus, filed an Appeal with the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 73774. On 12 December 2005, the Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed Decision, the pertinent portions of which provide: We find for the [herein respondent]. There is no doubt that PD 27 and the implementing rule EO 228 are constitutional. Their constitutionality has been upheld in the landmark case of Association of Small Landowners vs. DAR and reiterated in a long line of cases. That notwithstanding, this Court opines that the application of the formula under PD 27 and EO 228 in arriving at the just compensation in the case at bar is not only unjust, but is also oppressive to the rights of [respondent]. Be it noted that the lands subject matter of this case were taken in 1972, but remained unpaid to this day. The compensation offered by the [herein petitioner] in the amount of P148,172.21 for the remaining lands was based on the land valuation some 20 years ago, at the time of its taking in 1972, pursuant to PD 27. EO 228, series of 1987 declared that the valuation of rice and corn lands covered by PD 27 shall be based on the ave