G.R. No. 189125 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BIENVENIDO CASTRO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court holds that the respective valuations recommended by the Court Commissioners for subject Lots are fair, reasonable and just under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [Castro and the landowners and against DAR and LBP], determining and fixing the just compensations for [Castros and the other landowners] properties, as follows: x x x x For Lot No. 2636, subject of Civil Case No. 1516, at P43,327.16 per hectare or a total of P404,632.35 for the entire 9.3390 hectares. x x x LBP is ordered to pay [Castro and the other landowners], within fifteen (15) days from finality of this Decision, the aforesaid amounts, the mode of payments of which shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18, Chapter VI of R.A. 6657. [13] Aggrieved, LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the SACs decision, asserting that Castro had already accepted LBPs valuation of the subject property at P144,205.90 as shown in three documents Castro had signed: two Reply to Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition dated 18 September 1997 and 13 March 2001, respectively; and the Deed of Confirmation of Transfer Executed by the Landowner dated 5 March 2001. LBP likewise assailed the Commissioners Report, contending that at the time LBP initially inspected the subject property in 1994, only two hectares were unirrigated riceland while the remaining 7.3390 hectares were forest land, in contrast to the Commissioners findings based on the Ocular Inspection conducted a decade thereafter in 2004. The SAC was unmoved by LBPs plea for reconsideration and did not reconsider its decision, to wit: There is no merit in the instant Motion for Reconsideration. On the claim that [Castro] allegedly agreed to the initial valuation of subject property by [LBP and DAR] as, in fact, in Landowners Reply to Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition, dated September 18, 1997 and March 13, 2001 he categorically and repeatedly accept(ed) the value being offered by the government to his property in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FORTY FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIVE and 90/100 (P144,205.90), [Castro] correctly pointed out that said defense or objection was not alleged in the Answer. Neither was it alleged as a ground of the Motion to Dismiss. [LBP] participated in the proceedings without raising said defense or objection, and invoked it for the first in the instant Motion for Reconsideration. The rule is that (d)efenses and objection not pleaded in the motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived x x x. The above defense or objection is not one of the recognized exceptions to the rule enumerated in the said Section. [LBP] should not fault the Court for considering the Commissioners Report in fixing the just compensation of subject property. Firstly, [LBP] did not object to the appointment of Court Commissioners as, in fact, it was represented, together with x x x DAR, by Commissioner [J]erry Villason. Secondly, [LBP] did not object