G.R. No. 160143 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BENECIO EUSEBIO, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the CA considered as fair and equitable the amount the RTC-SAC fixed as just compensation, given the four-year time lapse between 1988, when Eusebio offered to sell the property for P19,500,000.00 and 1992, when the government actually deprived Eusebio of his property. The LBP filed the present petition after the CA denied its motion for reconsideration [16] in the CAs September 24, 2003 resolution. [17] The Court initially denied the LBPs petition for review on certiorari in a Resolution dated November 10, 2003. [18] On the LBPs motion for reconsideration, [19] the Court reinstated the petition in a Resolution dated January 26, 2004. [20] The Petition In this petition, [21] the LBP concedes that the RTC-SAC has original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine just compensation. Nevertheless, it argues that the RTC-SACs determination must be guided by the valuation factors enumerated under R.A. No. 6657 and the implementing guidelines that the DAR issued for the purpose. The LBP points out that the DAR, in the exercise of its rule-making power granted under R.A. No. 6657, issued DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94 that prescribes the formulae in the computation of just compensation for lands acquired pursuant to R.A. No. 6657. Unless otherwise declared null and void, the LBP stresses that these DAR administrative orders have the force and effect of law and are entitled to great respect, even by this Court. In carrying out its functions under Executive Order No. 405, [22] the LBP points out that it, in turn, simply observed and used the DAR prescribed formulae in arriving at the P4,081,405.63 valuation, which, it emphasizes, the CA even noted in its decision. Addressing directly the CAs valuation, the LBP directs the Courts attention to the testimony of Eusebios witness [23] and points out that when the government took possession of the property in 1990, Eusebio and his family had already discontinued investing and had stopped developing it from thereon; in addition, over 674 hectares of the acquired propertys area was then cogonal. Thus, the marked difference in the propertys condition from the time the government acquired it in 1990 up to the time the Board conducted its ocular inspection in 1997 should and must be properly accounted for as developments introduced by the farmer-beneficiaries. Accordingly, the LBP argues, the valuation that the RTC-SAC and the CA made clearly contravened the Courts mandate that just compensation should be determined as of the propertys time of taking, which in this case was, at the most, in 1992 when TCT No. T-4562 was cancelled and Certificates of Land Transfer were issued to the recognized farmer-beneficiaries. Additionally, the LBP argues that R.A. No. 6657 directs the determination of just compensation based on the covered propertys actual use and income and not on its potential or future use as applied by the RTC-SAC when it relied on the market value approach. The LBP also p