G.R. No. 181953* - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RURAL BANK OF HERMOSA (BATAAN), INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the just compensation for the subject land should have been computed based on the values prevalent for like agricultural lands [37] in accordance with the pertinent DAR regulations effective during such time of taking . However, while the subject land was placed under CARP coverage in 1991, records do not bear out the date when title was issued in the name of the Republic or CLOAs were issued in favor of the farmer-beneficiaries. Moreover, during the pendency of the proceedings, DAR AO 17, Series of 1989, as amended, which was used by the LBP in computing the just compensation for the subject land, was repealed by DAR AO 6, Series of 1992 [38] that was amended by DAR AO 11, Series of 1994, [39] and subsequently superseded by DAR AO 5, Series of 1998, [40] which was, in turn, revoked by DAR AO 2, Series of 2009. [41] It must be pointed out, however, that DAR AO 2, Series of 2009 implementing RA 9700 [42] expressly declared that all claim folders received by the LBP prior to July 1, 2009, as in this case, shall be valued in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, prior to its further amendment by RA 9700. [43] Records further show that during the summary administrative proceedings before the PARAD, [44] the subject land was revalued in accordance with DAR AO 6, Series of 1992 and DAR AO 11, Series of 1994, [45] but resulted to a lower valuation on both instances. [46] Nonetheless, the records are bereft of showing why the LBP insisted upon the applicability of DAR AO 17, Series of 1989, as amended, instead of the said AOs. Consequently, despite the propriety of setting aside the just compensation fixed by the RTC, and affirmed by the CA, the Court cannot automatically adopt the LBP's own computation as prayed for in the instant petition. Notably, other than the Land Valuation Worksheet [47] for the land covered by TCT No. T-114714, and the Field Investigation Reports for the lands covered by TCT No. T-114713 [48] and TCT No. T-114714, [49] no competent evidence was adduced by the LBP to support the amounts used in arriving at the just compensation, not having attached any certification from the concerned government agency showing the relevant industry data on the average gross production (AGP) of palay in the locality for purposes of computing the capitalized net income (CNI), [50] and the tax declarations from which it derived the market values used. [51] Besides, the veracity of the facts and figures which the LBP used under the circumstances involves the resolution of questions of fact which is, as a rule, improper in a petition for review on certiorari since the Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, a remand of this case for reception of further evidence is necessary in order for the RTC, acting as a SAC, to determine just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, and the applicable DAR regulations. [52] To this end, the RTC is hereby directed to observe the following guidelines in the remand of t