Case Digest Written By: John Marc T. Esquibil Case Name: LBP vs. Rufino G.R. No. 175644. October 2, 2009. Doctrine

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 1

CASE DIGEST

Written By: John Marc T. Esquibil


Case Name: LBP vs. Rufino G.R. No. 175644. October 2, 2009.
Doctrine:
In computing for the just compensation related to land taken under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), computation should be
based on Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAR AO 6-92. Section 17 of RA 6657 and
DAR AO 6-92, as amended, are mandatory and not mere guides that the can
be disregarded.
Facts:
Respondents' claim, in 1989, that they voluntarily offered their parcel of
agricultural land situated in Barangay San Benon, Irosin, Sorsogon to the
government for CARP coverage at P120,000 per hectare. Acting thereon,
petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued a Notice of Land
Valuation and Acquisition dated October 21, 1996 declaring that out of the total
area indicated in the title, 138.4018 hectares was subject to immediate
acquisition at a valuation of P8,736,270.40 based on the assessment of petitioner
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).
Respondents having found the valuation unacceptable, the matter was referred
to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) for the conduct of summary
administrative proceedings to determine just compensation. DARAB sustained
LBP's valuation. Subsequently, the issue was raised by the respondents to RTC
which ruled that the market data approach is more realistic and consistent with
law and jurisprudence to identify just compensation for the full and fair
equivalent of the property. The Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's
valuation.
Issue:
Whether the market data approach or Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAR AO 6-92
will apply in the computation of just compensation.
Ruling:
Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAR AO 6-92, as amended, are mandatory and not
mere guides that the RTC may disregard.
In fixing the just compensation in the present case, the trial court, adopting the
market data approach merely put premium on the location of the property and
the crops planted thereon which are not among the factors enumerated in
Section 17 of RA 6657. And the trial court did not apply the formula provided in
DAR AO 6-92, as amended. This is a clear departure from the settled doctrine
regarding the mandatory nature of Section 17 of RA 6657 and the DAR issuances
implementing it. RTC cannot resort to any other means of determining just
compensation, aside from Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAR AO 6-92.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy