G.R. No. 170245 - THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES DOMINGO TRIA AND CONSORCIA CAMANO TRIA, VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, partial judgment is hereby rendered ordering Defendant Land Bank of the Philippines to pay the Heirs of Domingo Tria and Consorcia Camano the following amounts: EIGHTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-NINE and 98/100 (P18,549.98) PESOS, Philippine Currency, plus interest earned from investment securities at the shortest time and at the highest rate possible in accordance with Executive Order No. 12; and ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR THOUSAND (P164,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, plus interest thereon at market rates of interest that are aligned with 90-day treasury bill rates, computed from date of approval of the claim of the said spouses. This partial judgment shall be without prejudice to further proceedings to determine the just compensation and other claims due the Heirs of the deceased Spouses Domingo Tria and Consorcia Camano as provided by law. In compliance with the RTCs Order, respondent LBP paid petitioners the total amount of P309,444.97 in the form of managers checks, and the amount of P43,524.00 in the form of LBP Bonds, representing the cash portion with interest earned from investment securities, and bond payment of the just compensation for the expropriated property, respectively. [5] In the course of the proceedings, the RTC appointed three Commissioners to compute and recommend to the court the just compensation to be paid for the expropriated property. In their report, each of the three Commissioners adopted a different formula in their valuation for the expropriated property: (1) the Commissioner representing respondent LBP adopted the mode of computation provided under EO No. 228; (2) the Commissioner representing petitioners adopted the Sales Value Analysis Formula; and (3) the Commissioner representing the trial court used the Assessors Schedule of Value Formula. In order to resolve the differences in their computation, the Commissioners obtained the average of their respective valuations and made a final recommendation of P1,151,166.51 for the entire expropriated property. However, neither the parties nor the RTC found the computation of the Commissioners acceptable. Resultantly, in a Decision [6] dated August 23, 1995, the RTC made its own computation by using the formula used by the Commissioner representing the LBP with the slight modification that it used the government support price ( GSP ) for one cavan of palay in 1994 as multiplier. Not in conformity with the RTCs ruling, respondents interposed an appeal before the CA. On March 31, 2004, the CA rendered a Decision [7] affirming the RTCs ruling. It held that the formula and computation adopted by the RTC are well in accord with the working principles of fairness and equity, and likewise finds ample support from the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the matter of determination of just compensation. Nevertheless, upon a motion for reconsideration filed by respondents, the CA reversed itself and issued an Amended Decision [8] dated October 25, 2