G.R. No. 182209 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EMILIANO R. SANTIAGO, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the defendant Land Bank of the Philippines is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff in the sum of P1,039,017.88 representing the balance of the land valuation of the plaintiff with legal interest at 12% from the year 1998 until the same is fully paid subject to the modes of compensation under R.A. No. 6657. [25] The SAC Branch 23 arrived at its ruling, ratiocinating in this wise: The defendant LBP arrived at this aforesaid amount by pegging the price at the rate of P35.00 per cavan , which was the government support price [GSP] in 1972, pursuant to E.O. No. 228. With the GSP of palay in 1992 being already P300.00 per cavan x x x, it is very clear, then, that the [respondent] was denied the true, current actual money equivalence of the land valuation of 3,915 cavans of palay mutually agreed upon by the parties. Aptly, plaintiff had been short-paid. x x x. x x x x The sum of P135,482.12 as the money value of 3,915 cavans did not, therefore, amount to just compensation to [respondent] since what was due to him of 3,915 cavans was diluted when the defendant LBP gave a money value at the rate of P35.00 per cavan, which was a far cry from the prevailing true and actual GSP of P300.00 per cavan in 1992 x x x. [26] Discontented with the ruling, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration [27] of the SACs decision on February 16, 2000, arguing that the GSP per cavan of palay should be computed at P400.00 instead of P300.00 because payment of the preliminary compensation was made by LBP in 1998 and not in 1992. Respondent likewise insisted that in addition to the 12% legal interest ordered by the SAC, a compounded annual interest of 6% of the principal amount should be awarded to them pursuant to the PARC Resolution and DAR AO No. 13. Furthermore, respondent asked that the DAR be ordered to return to him the unacquired portion of the subject property. [28] On February 10, 2000, Judge Andres R. Amante, Jr., the presiding judge of SAC Branch 23, inhibited himself from resolving the motion for reconsideration, [29] thus, the case was re-raffled to the RTC of Cabanatuan City, Branch 29, acting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC Branch 29). [30] On January 28, 2004, the SAC Branch 29 issued a Resolution, with the following fallo : WHEREFORE, the decision is reconsidered as follows: 1. The defendant Land Bank of the Philippines is hereby ordered to pay the petitioner the sum of P1,039,017.88 representing the land valuation of the petitioner with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum beginning year 1998 until the same is fully paid subject to the modes of compensation under Republic Act No. 6657. 2. The Land Bank of the Philippines is ordered to return to the petitioner the unacquired area embraced and covered by TCT No. NT-60359 after segregating the area taken by the DAR. [31] In denying respondents claim over the 6% compounded annual interest, the SAC Branch 29 explained that the purpose of the compounded interest was to compensate the landow