G.R. No. 172551 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court considered the CA in grave abuse of discretion as it used the wrong considerations and thereby acted outside the contemplation of the law. This use of considerations that were completely outside the contemplation of the law is the precise situation we find in the present case, as fully explained below. The rules allow the courts to take judicial notice of certain facts; the RTC-SACs valuation is erroneous The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and convenience for it fulfills the purpose that the evidence is intended to achieve, and in this sense, it is equivalent to proof. [43] Generally, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge. [44] They may, however, take judicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same court if: (1) the parties present them in evidence, absent any opposition from the other party; or (2) the court, in its discretion, resolves to do so. [45] In either case, the courts must observe the clear boundary provided by Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. We note that Yatco offered in evidence copies of the decisions in the civil cases, [46] which offer the LBP opposed. [47] These were duly noted by the court. [48] Even assuming, however, that the April 21, 2004 order [49] of the RTC-SAC (that noted Yatcos offer in evidence and the LBPs opposition to it) constitutes sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, still we find the RTC-SACs valuation based on Branch 36s previous ruling to be legally erroneous. The RTC-SAC fully disregarded Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR AO 5-98 and thus acted outside the contemplation of the law. Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 reads: Section 17. Determination of Just Compensation . In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation. While DAR AO 5-98 [50] pertinently provides: A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by VOS or CA: LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1) Where: LV = Land Value CNI = Capitalized Net Income CS = Comparable Sales MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration The above formula shall be used if all three factors are present, relevant, and applicable. A1. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, the formula shall be: LV = (CNI x 0.9)