LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOSE T. LAJOM, REPRESENTED BY PORFIRIO RODRIGUEZ, FLORENCIA LAJOM GARCIA-DIAZ, FRANCISCO LAJOM GARCIA, JR., FERNANDO LAJOM RODRIGUEZ, TOMAS ATAYDE, AUGUSTO MIRANDA, JOSEFINA ATAYDE FRANCISCO, RAMON L. ATAYDE, AND BLESILDA ATAYDE RIOS.

Ruling

Accordingly, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), offered to pay Lajom the following amounts as just compensation for the following constitutive areas of the subject portion: (a) P19,434.00 for 11.3060 has.; (b) P17,505.65 for 2.4173 has.; and (c) P80,733.45 for 10.3949 has. (DAR valuation). [11] Records show, however, that despite non-payment of the offered just compensation, DAR granted twelve (12) Emancipation Patents [12] between 1994 and 1998 in favor of the following farmer-beneficiaries: Vicente Dela Cruz, Donato Magno, [13] Eutiquio Gablao, [14] Ricardo Bulos, Proceso Julian, Ceferino Dela Cruz, Rufino Gripal, Simplicio Pataleta, [15] Jovita Vda. De Bondoc, and Julian Pataleta [16] (farmer-beneficiaries). [17] Lajom rejected the DAR valuation and, instead, filed an amended petition [18] for determination of just compensation and cancellation of land transfers against the DAR, the LBP, and the said farmer-beneficiaries, docketed as SP. Civil Case No. 1483-AF. [19] He alleged, inter alia, that in computing the amount of just compensation, the DAR erroneously applied the provisions of PD 27 and Executive Order No. (EO) 228, Series of 1997, that have been repealed by Section 17 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, [20] otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which took effect on June 15, 1988. Thus, he asserted that the value of the subject portion should be computed based on the provisions of RA 6657, and not of PD 27 and/or EO 228. He likewise claimed that the Barrio Committee on Land Production (BCLP) resolution which fixed the average gross production (AGP) per ha. per year at 120 cavans of palay, and which the DAR used in arriving at its valuation was falsified and therefore cannot validly serve as basis for determining the value of the land. In sum, Lajom stressed that the DAR valuation was arrived at without due process, highly prejudicial and inimical to his and his heirs property rights. [21] For its part, the LBP agreed with the DAR valuation and insisted that PD 27 and EO 228, on which the DAR valuation was based, were never abrogated by the passage of RA 6657, contrary to Lajoms stance. [22] The RTC Ruling In a Decision [23] dated March 11, 2004, the RTC rejected the DAR valuation and, using the formula Land Value = (AGP x 2.5 Hectares x Government Support Price [GSP] x Area) under PD 27 and EO 228, fixed the just compensation for the subject portion at the total amount of P3,858,912.00, with legal interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 1991 until fully paid. [24] The RTC set the AGP at 160 cavans of palay per ha. per year, taking judicial notice of the fact that the normal production of 120 cavans thereof per ha. per year has been increased with the advent of new modern farm technology coupled with the utilization of high-breed variety of palay , good weather, and continuous supply of irrigated water. [25] With respect to the GSP, the RTC pegged the s