Case Digest: DAR v. Heirs of Domingo
G.R. No. 188670 : March 7, 2012
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, represented by OIC-Secretary JOSE MARI B. PONCE, now by Secretary NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF ANGEL T. DOMINGO, Respondents.
REYES, J.:
FACTS:
The late Angel T. Domingo (Domingo) is the registered owner of a rice land which was expropriated by the government by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27 which provides that actual tenant farmers of private agricultural lands devoted to rice and corn, were deemed as full owners of the land they till. Domingo filed with the RTC a complaint for determination and payment of just compensation against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and DAR.Domingo opposed the valuation of LBP and DAR, claiming that the just compensation for the subject land should be computed using the parameters set forth under Republic Act No. 6657. The LBP and DAR disputed Domingos valuation and claimed that the determination of just compensation should be governed by the provisions of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228. The RTC used the method set forth under P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228 except that it used the GSP rate at the time of issuance of the various Emancipation Patents. The LBP and DAR then appealed from the decision of the RTC to the CA and the latter ruled that, for purposes of determining the just compensation for lands covered by P.D. No. 27, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 must be applied.
ISSUE: Whether or not the method set forth under R.A. No. 6657 in the computation of just compensation may be applied to private agricultural lands taken by the government under the auspices of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228.
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.
POLITICAL LAW: computation of just compensation
Just compensation for private agricultural lands acquired by the government under the auspices of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228 should be computed in accordance with the method set forth under R.A. No. 6657. It would be the height of inequity if the just compensation for the subject land is computed using the values at the time when P.D. No. 27 was issued. Admittedly, the expropriation of the subject land was initiated under P.D. No. 27. Nevertheless, with the passage of R.A. No. 6657, the CA aptly ruled that the method set forth thereunder should be adopted in computing just compensation for the subject land.
In sum, in determining just compensation, the cost of the 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.
DENIED
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, represented by OIC-Secretary JOSE MARI B. PONCE, now by Secretary NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF ANGEL T. DOMINGO, Respondents.
REYES, J.:
FACTS:
The late Angel T. Domingo (Domingo) is the registered owner of a rice land which was expropriated by the government by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27 which provides that actual tenant farmers of private agricultural lands devoted to rice and corn, were deemed as full owners of the land they till. Domingo filed with the RTC a complaint for determination and payment of just compensation against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and DAR.Domingo opposed the valuation of LBP and DAR, claiming that the just compensation for the subject land should be computed using the parameters set forth under Republic Act No. 6657. The LBP and DAR disputed Domingos valuation and claimed that the determination of just compensation should be governed by the provisions of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228. The RTC used the method set forth under P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228 except that it used the GSP rate at the time of issuance of the various Emancipation Patents. The LBP and DAR then appealed from the decision of the RTC to the CA and the latter ruled that, for purposes of determining the just compensation for lands covered by P.D. No. 27, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 must be applied.
ISSUE: Whether or not the method set forth under R.A. No. 6657 in the computation of just compensation may be applied to private agricultural lands taken by the government under the auspices of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228.
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.
POLITICAL LAW: computation of just compensation
Just compensation for private agricultural lands acquired by the government under the auspices of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228 should be computed in accordance with the method set forth under R.A. No. 6657. It would be the height of inequity if the just compensation for the subject land is computed using the values at the time when P.D. No. 27 was issued. Admittedly, the expropriation of the subject land was initiated under P.D. No. 27. Nevertheless, with the passage of R.A. No. 6657, the CA aptly ruled that the method set forth thereunder should be adopted in computing just compensation for the subject land.
In sum, in determining just compensation, the cost of the 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.
DENIED