Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    123 Heirs V LBP

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous UEyi81Gv
    1) The deceased spouses owned 32 hectares of land that was expropriated by the government in 1972 under PD 27. In 1990, LBP offered to pay PHP 182,549.98 in compensation, mostly in LBP bonds. 2) The heirs rejected this, arguing the compensation should be PHP 2.7 million. The court ordered LBP to pay the original offer amount according to EO 228 provisions. 3) Applying EO 228 would result in unjust compensation as the heirs were deprived of the land's use since 1972 and palay prices increased much more than the interest rate would provide. The compensation should be determined under RA 6657 using current palay prices.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    123 Heirs V LBP

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous UEyi81Gv
    32 views2 pages
    1) The deceased spouses owned 32 hectares of land that was expropriated by the government in 1972 under PD 27. In 1990, LBP offered to pay PHP 182,549.98 in compensation, mostly in LBP bonds. 2) The heirs rejected this, arguing the compensation should be PHP 2.7 million. The court ordered LBP to pay the original offer amount according to EO 228 provisions. 3) Applying EO 228 would result in unjust compensation as the heirs were deprived of the land's use since 1972 and palay prices increased much more than the interest rate would provide. The compensation should be determined under RA 6657 using current palay prices.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    123 Heirs v LBP

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The deceased spouses owned 32 hectares of land that was expropriated by the government in 1972 under PD 27. In 1990, LBP offered to pay PHP 182,549.98 in compensation, mostly in LBP bonds. 2) The heirs rejected this, arguing the compensation should be PHP 2.7 million. The court ordered LBP to pay the original offer amount according to EO 228 provisions. 3) Applying EO 228 would result in unjust compensation as the heirs were deprived of the land's use since 1972 and palay prices increased much more than the interest rate would provide. The compensation should be determined under RA 6657 using current palay prices.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views2 pages

    123 Heirs V LBP

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous UEyi81Gv
    1) The deceased spouses owned 32 hectares of land that was expropriated by the government in 1972 under PD 27. In 1990, LBP offered to pay PHP 182,549.98 in compensation, mostly in LBP bonds. 2) The heirs rejected this, arguing the compensation should be PHP 2.7 million. The court ordered LBP to pay the original offer amount according to EO 228 provisions. 3) Applying EO 228 would result in unjust compensation as the heirs were deprived of the land's use since 1972 and palay prices increased much more than the interest rate would provide. The compensation should be determined under RA 6657 using current palay prices.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Heirs vs.

    LBP | 123

    Topic: Just Compensation – Manner of Payment

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 170245. July 1, 2013.]

    THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES DOMINGO TRIA and CONSORCIA CAMANO TRIA, petitioners, vs.
    LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondents.

    PERALTA, J p:

    FACTS:

    During their lifetime, the deceased spouses Domingo Tria and Consorcia Camano owned a parcel of
    agricultural land located at Sangay, Camarines Sur, with an area of 32.3503 hectares.
    By virtue of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27, which mandated the emancipation of tenant-farmers from
    the bondage of the soil, the Government, sometime in 1972, took a sizeable portion of the deceased
    spouses' property with a total area of 25.3830 hectares. Pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order (EO)
    No. 228, respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) made an offer on November 23, 1990 to pay
    petitioners, by way of compensation for the land, the total amount of P182,549.98, broken down as
    follows: P18,549.98 of which would be in cash, and the remaining P164,000.00 to be satisfied in the
    form of LBP Bonds.
    Not satisfied with the LBP's valuation of their property, petitioners rejected their offer and filed a
    Complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City claiming that the just compensation for
    their property is P2,700,000.00.
    During trial, petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Judgment praying that respondent LBP pay them the
    amount of P182,549.98 pursuant to its previous offer. Hence, the RTC issued a Partial Judgment on
    December 22, 1992 ordering respondent LBP to pay the amount of P182,549.98.
    Consequently, respondent LBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration against said Partial Judgment on the
    ground that the RTC's Order for it to immediately pay the amount of P182,549.98 is not in accord with
    the provisions of Section 3 of EO No. 228 which requires payment of just compensation partially in cash
    and gradually through LBP Bonds.
    The RTC issued an Order granting respondent LBP's motion for reconsideration. This partial judgment
    shall be without prejudice to further proceedings to determine the just compensation and other claims
    due the Heirs of the deceased Spouses Domingo Tria and Consorcia Camano as provided by law.
    In compliance with the RTC's Order, respondent LBP paid petitioners the total amount of P309,444.97
    in the form of manager's checks, and the amount of P43,524.00 in the form of LBP Bonds, representing
    the cash portion with interest earned from investment securities, and bond payment of the just
    compensation for the expropriated property, respectively.
    In the course of the proceedings, the RTC appointed three Commissioners to compute and recommend
    to the court the just compensation to be paid for the expropriated property.

    In a Decision dated August 23, 1995, the RTC made its own computation by using the formula used by
    the Commissioner representing the LBP with the slight modification that it used the government support
    price (GSP) for one cavan of palay in 1994 as multiplier.
    Heirs vs. LBP | 123

    ISSUE: Whether or not applying the provisions of EO No. 228 would result to unjust compensation.

    RULING: Yes applying the provisions of EO No. 228 would result to unjust compensation.

    In the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat and Gloria Puyat, the Court ruled
    that when the government takes property pursuant to PD No. 27, but does not pay the landowner his
    just compensation until after RA No. 6657 has taken effect in 1988, it becomes more equitable to
    determine just compensation using RA No. 6657 and not EO No. 228. Hence, the valuation of the
    government support price of palay should be based on its value at the time it was ordered paid by the
    Special Agrarian Court.

    Considering that the present case involves a similar factual milieu as the aforementioned cases, the
    Court deems it more equitable to determine just compensation due the petitioners using values
    pursuant to the standard laid down in Section 17 of RA No. 6657.
    When P.D. No. 27 took effect. What made the said portion of Executive Order No. 228 unfair and unjust
    is the fact that the landowner was not paid in 1972 and he has been deprived of his 25% share in the
    net harvest since 1972, until now.
    Eduardo Ico, the [C]ommissioner representing the defendant Land Bank of the Philippines, modified
    the formula prescribed in Executive Order No. 228, by getting the average of the following values: (1)
    the total value of the land based upon the government support price of P35.00 with interest of six (6%)
    per cent per annum, compounded annually from 1972 until 1994; and (2) the total value of the land
    based upon the present government support price of P300.00 per cavan.
    The Court finds that the said modification of the formula has no basis in fact and in law. To let the value
    of the land earn interest of 6% per annum would be fair enough had the price of palay remained the
    same. The fact, however, was that the price of palay had increased 857 times from 1972 to 1994,
    whereas 6% interest would mean only an increase of 138 times from 1972 to 1995. The Court
    does not see the justification for getting the average between the government support prices in 1972
    and in 1995.
    Needless to say, petitioners have been deprived of the use and dominion over their landholdings for a
    substantial period of time, while respondents abjectly failed to pay the just compensation due the
    petitioners.
    WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The
    Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 25, 2005 is hereby REVERSED and SET
    ASIDE, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, dated August 23, 1995, is
    hereby AFFIRMED and REINSTATED.

    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