G.R. No. 165428 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. TERESITA PANLILIO LUCIANO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds that the just compensation for the land covered by TCT No. 223893, with an area of 10.4995 hectares, is P825,050.71; and the land covered by TCT No. 223894, with an area of 12.7526 hectares, is P1,002,099.30 to be paid in accordance with the mode of payment under Section 18 of R.A. 6657. [14] In arriving at its decision, the RTC made the following disquisitions, thus: R.A. 6657 merely sets the criteria which [may be] used as bases in determining just compensation, such as the cost of acquisition, income, sworn statement of owners, assessments by government assessors. (Sec. 17, RA 6657). The petitioner (herein respondent) should have submitted evidence on these aspects, but also did not. The petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment which is appropriate, considering that the answer filed by the DAR did not tender any genuine issue. Petitioner adopted, as exhibit, the Land Valuation Worksheet. The Court, based on this limited data appearing on the said valuation sheet, had to fix the just compensation. The average gross production is 78.58 canvas of palay per hectare. The computed net income is fixed at 20%. The DAR, using the computed or capitalized net income divided by 16% [came] up with a value of P20,921.94 per hectare, pegging the selling price of palay at P4.26 per kilo. Thus, the total compensation, as per DAR's computation, is P192,191.98, using its formula. By any stretch of the imagination, the Court cannot accept as just compensation the amount or value of the land per hectare at P20,921.94 fixed by respondents. Even raw lands or hilly lands which are offered for sale will command a higher price. That price is not even equivalent to the price of a square meter of a parcel of land in the center of Manila. Again, petitioner rely on the provision of RA 3844, requiring the payment of five (5) times the gross average harvest as disturbance compensation to be paid to tenants ejected by a Court's decision. (Sec. 36 (1), RA 3844, as amended by RA 6389). This could not be applicable in the reverse, i.e. , if the land will be sold by the landowner. The only reason the landowner is required to pay five (5) times the gross average harvest as disturbance compensation is to discourage the ejectment of tenants. This Court is of the opinion that P.D. No. 27 may still be applied in this case, even in a suppletory character. (Sections 75 and 76, RA 6657). The formula specified therein is simple and just as it is based on the average gross production for the three cropping seasons/years prior thereto. It is also in consonance with justice that the selling price of palay should be the current price of P8.00 per kilo rather than the P35.00 per cavan. The offer of the petitioner for the price of the land is P50,000.00 when the offer was made in 1991. Thus, computed under P.D. No. 27, the value should be - 1. 78.58 x 400 x 2.5 x 10.4995 for the 10.4995 hectares; 2. 78.58 x 400 x 2.5 x 12.7526 for the 12.7526 hectares. [15] Peti