Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Land Bank of The Philippines v. Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Jm Santos
    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the new formula for determining just compensation under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law applies even if the land was acquired under an earlier decree, since compensation was not determined prior to RA 6657's passage, and (2) the trial court has final say over the valuation, not the Department of Agrarian Reform, and upheld the trial court's computation in this case.

    Copyright:

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

    Land Bank of The Philippines v. Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Jm Santos
    65 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the new formula for determining just compensation under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law applies even if the land was acquired under an earlier decree, since compensation was not determined prior to RA 6657's passage, and (2) the trial court has final say over the valuation, not the Department of Agrarian Reform, and upheld the trial court's computation in this case.

    Original Description:

    37. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Soriano

    Original Title

    37. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Soriano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the new formula for determining just compensation under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law applies even if the land was acquired under an earlier decree, since compensation was not determined prior to RA 6657's passage, and (2) the trial court has final say over the valuation, not the Department of Agrarian Reform, and upheld the trial court's computation in this case.

    Copyright:

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

    Land Bank of The Philippines v. Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Jm Santos
    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the new formula for determining just compensation under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law applies even if the land was acquired under an earlier decree, since compensation was not determined prior to RA 6657's passage, and (2) the trial court has final say over the valuation, not the Department of Agrarian Reform, and upheld the trial court's computation in this case.

    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

    CASE TITLE Land Bank of the Philippines v. Soriano G.R. NO.

    180772 and 180776


    PONENTE PEREZ, J. DATE May 6, 2010

    DOCTRINE 1. If just compensation is not settled prior to the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, the
    formula for determination should be computed in accordance with the new formula under
    the new law, even if the property was acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27.
    2. Valuation of the land by the DAR is only preliminary and is not final and conclusive upon
    the landowner or any other interested party. The courts have the final say on what the
    amount of just compensation will be.
    FACTS Respondents Domingo and Mamerto Soriano are the registered owners of several parcels of rice
    land in Albay. 18.2820 hectares of the 18.9163 hectares of land owned by the respondents were
    placed under the Operations Land Transfer and the CARP pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27
    and Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

    LBP placed the value of 18.0491 hectares of land at P482,363.957 (the land value at P133,751.65,
    plus incremental interest at P348,612.30). Meanwhile, the remaining 0.2329 hectare was
    computed at P8,238.94. The respondents, unsatisfied with the valuation, instituted a Complaint for
    judicial determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, sitting as
    a Special Agrarian Court (SAC).

    In their complaint, the respondents alleged that they are entitled to an amount of not less than
    P4,500,000.00 as just compensation for the expropriated portion of their property. The SAC
    rendered a judgment, ordering LBP to pay the respondents P894,584.94. This consists of just
    compensation for the 18.0491 hectares of irrigated riceland at P133,751.79, plus increment of 6%
    per annum computed annually beginning from the date of the taking until the value is fully paid.
    This also includes compensation for the 0.2329 hectare of rain fed riceland at P8,238.94, plus 12%
    interest per annum, from the date when the land was actually tenanted until the value is fully paid.

    The SAC applied the formula prescribed under Executive Order No. 228 in determining the
    valuation ofthe property:

    Land value = Average Gross Production x 2.5 x Government Support Price.

    1
    Moreover, it also granted compounded interest pursuant to Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
    Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1994, as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 2,series
    of 2004. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, whic affirmed the decision of the RTC
    (SAC).

    ISSUE/S 1. Is the determination of just compensation for property in question covered by the
    Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program?
    2. Is the computation imposed by the trial courts correct?

    RULING/S 1. Yes. The new formula for the determination of just compensation applies.

    Since just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, the
    formula for determination should be computed in accordance with the new formula under
    the new law, even if the property was acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27.

    2. No. The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The DAR's land valuation
    is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final and conclusive upon the landowner or
    any other interested party. In the exercise of their functions, the courts still have the final
    say on what the amount of just compensation will be. Hence, the Court sustain the
    computation reached by the trial court.

    You might also like