G.R. Nos. 236772-73 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. IGNACIO PALIZA, SR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the Court hereby renders judgment and declares, as follow, to wit: a) The just compensation for the agricultural lands owned by the private respondent, Ignacio Paliza, Sr. is hereby fixed in the amount of Php331,113.03. [For] Lot No. 5763 with an area of 3.2208 hectares and the amount of Php43,477.74 for Lot No. 5853, with an area of 0.5028 hectare or the total amount of Php374,590.77. b) The petitioner is hereby directed to compensate private respondent in the aforesaid sum minus the amount actually received by him, if anything, within a period of thirty (30) days from notice of this decision free of any interest, and with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum if not compensated within the 30-day period herein mandated, which payment of interest shall commence on the 31 st day from notice of the decision until the amount of just compensation is fully satisfied or received by the private respondent. [15] (Emphasis in the original) The RTC held that the determination of just compensation is exclusively a judicial function. In the performance of the same, it held that it cannot be dictated by the DAR or Land Bank. Nonetheless, it ruled that it shall be guided by the applicable formula prescribed by the DAR, subject only to the determination of the date of taking. In the determination of the date of taking, the court is not strictly bound by Section 16 and 17 and other provisions of R.A. No. 6657, and it can apply, by analogy, any administrative issuance of the DAR. [16] Moreover, Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700, [17] and expressed either under DAR AO No. 5, DAR AO No. 2, Series of 2009, and DAR AO No. 1, is applicable for the determination of just compensation for all agricultural lands without distinction. This is true whether the lands are already subjected to the preliminary determination of land valuation by Land Bank and challenged by the landowner, or are yet to be placed under the operation of the agrarian reform program by the DAR. [18] In the present case, the RTC found that neither Land Bank nor the DAR considered the date of taking when they arrived at their determination of just compensation. It then used the formula under DAR AO No. 1, which it held effectively amended the presumptive date of taking from the date of the issuance of the emancipation patent, CLOA, or title in the name of the Republic, to June 30, 2009. Thus, the RTC adopted the report of the appointed commissioner, which used the production data and values within the 12-month period preceding June 30, 2009. [19] The CA Ruling Land Bank [20] and Ignacio [21] filed separate petitions for review before the CA. In a consolidated decision, [22] the CA affirmed the RTC's determination of just compensation. It held that the RTC based its determination of just compensation on the report made by the commissioner, which was in accordance with Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, DAR AO No. 5 and DAR AO No. 1. The CA also affirmed the RTC's impos