June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 166461 : June 13, 2012]
HEIRS OF LORENZO AND CARMEN VIDAD AND AGVID CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 166461: HEIRS OF LORENZO AND CARMEN VIDAD and AGVID CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
On 18 January 2005, the heirs of Lorenzo and Carmen Vidad and Agvid Construction Co., Inc. (petitioners) filed a petition[1] for review challenging the 28 November 2003 Decision[2] and 20 December 2004 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68157. In its Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the 15 August 2001 Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Judicial Region 2, Branch 21, Santiago City, acting as Special Agrarian Court, in CAR Case No. 21-0632. The RTC set the amount of just compensation for petitioners' 446.2375-hectare properly at P5,626,724.47.
In Heirs of Lorenzo and Carmen Vidad v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[5] the Court granted the petition and remanded Agrarian Case No. 21-0632 to the Court of Appeals for reception of evidence and determination of the amount of just compensation. The dispositive portion states:
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68157. We REMAND Agrarian Case No. 21-0632 to the Court of Appeals, which is directed, to receive evidence and determine with dispatch the just compensation due petitioners strictly in accordance with this Decision, applying Section 17 of RA 6657, DAR AO No. 5, series of 1998, as amended, and the prevailing jurisprudence. The Court of Appeals is directed to conclude the proceedings and submit to the Court a report on its findings and recommended conclusions within forty-five (45) days from notice of this Decision. The Court of Appeals is further directed to raffle this case immediately upon receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.[6]
On 4 June 2010, respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) filed a motion[7] for reconsideration. In its 23 June 2010 Resolution,[8] the Court denied the motion.
On 7 September 2011, the Court of Appeals submitted its Report[9] recommending that the amount of just compensation be set at P9,611,177.31. The Court of Appeals examined petitioners' 29 exhibits and LBP�s 15 exhibits. To determine the amount of just compensation, the Court of Appeals applied the formula outlined in Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order (AO) No. 5, series of 1998:
A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by VOS or CA:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1) Where: LV = Land Value CN1 = Capitalized Net Income CS = Comparable Sales MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration The above formula shall be used if all three factors are present, relevant and applicable.
A1. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, the formula shall be:
LV= (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)A2. When the CNI factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, the formula shall be:
LV = (CS x 0.9) + (MV x 0.l)A3. When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is applicable, the formula shall be:
In no case shall the value of idle land using the formula MV x 2 exceed the lowest value of land within the same estate under consideration or within the same barangay or municipality (in that order) approved by LBP within one (1) year from receipt of claimfolder.
LV = MV x 2
After carefully examining the exhibits and applying the formula outlined in DAR AO No. 5, series of 1998, the Court of Appeals arrived at the amount of just compensation:
�
LAND USE AREA (HECTARE) TOTAL LAND VALUATION Irrigated Rice Land 3.7940 P384,785.47 Rainfed Rice Land 6.1289 P245,567.49 Upland Rice Land 1.2700 P 50,299.91 Corn Land (Native) 42.5200 P5,055,683.28 Vegetable Land 0.2400 P7,228.77 Idle Land 392.2846 P3,867,612.39 TOTAL 446.2375 P9,611,177.31
In their comment,[10] petitioners claim that the amount of just compensation must be valued at the time of payment and not at the time of taking. The Court is not impressed. Petitioners cannot, for the first time, raise any new issue at this stage of the case.[11] However, petitioners are entitled to 12% interest per annum on the amount of just compensation reckoned from the date of taking until full payment. In its Report, the Court of Appeals stated that, "records reveal that Petitioners' property was taken by the government sometime in 1991."[12] Until now, there is no showing that petitioners have been paid or that the amount of just compensation has been deposited. In her 6 July 2011 letter,[13] 90-year old petitioner Julia Vidad Vda De Nagtalon states that she hopes to "be able lo enjoy the proceeds of the property as just compensation"[14] before she dies. All her siblings already died during the pendency of the case.
In several cases,[15] the Court has consistently held that the landowner is entitled to 12% per annum legal interest from the time of taking until full payment of the amount of just compensation. In Apo Fruits Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[16] the Court held:
xxx [I]f property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must include interests on its just value, to be computed from the time the property is taken up to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court.[17]
In Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[18] citing Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[19] the Court held:
With respect to the amount of the just compensation still due and demandable from respondent NHA, the lower courts erred in not awarding interest computed from the time the properly is actually taken to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited in court. In Republic, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., the Court imposed the interest at 12% per annum in order to help eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value of the currency over time.[20]
Petitioners claim that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that 393.2846 hectares of the properly are idle land. In its comment,[21] LBP claims that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the industry data on the cost of operations provided by the Municipal Agriculture Office were credible, and in finding that the vegetable land was not idle land. The Court is not impressed. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court, save for a few exceptions.[22] Petitioners and LBP failed to show that any of the exceptions is present.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation of the Court of Appeals in its Report in CA-G.R. SP No. 68157. Land Bank of the Philippines is ordered to pay the heirs of Lorenzo and Carmen Vidad and Agvid Construction Co., Inc. P9,611,177.31 just compensation, with 12% interest per annum from the date of taking in 1991 until the amount is fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp 3-17.[2] Id. at 19-27. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner and Jose C. Reyes, Jr. concurring.
[3] Id. at 35.
[4] Id. at 61-63. Penned by Judge Fe Albano Madrid.
[5] G.R. No. 166461, 30 April 2010, 619 SCRA 609.
[6] Id. at 640.
[7] Rollo, pp. 382-393.
[8] Id. at 396.
[9] Id. at 437-461. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr. concurring.
[10] Id. at 506-516.
[11] Tolosa v. National Labor Relations Commission, 449 Phil. 271, 284 (2003).
[12] Rollo, p. 470.
[13] Id. at 490-491.
[14] Id. at 490.
[15] National Homing Authority v. Heirs of Metro Guivelondo, G.R. No. 106518, 16 June 2009, 589 SCRA 213, 222; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim, G.R. No. 1719-11, 2 August 2007, 529 SCRA 129, 142; Barangay Sindulan, San Fernando, Pampanga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150640, 22 March 2007, 518 SCRA 649, 659-660; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial, G.R. No. 157753, 12 February 2007, 515 SCRA 449, 458; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, 464 Phil. 83, 100-101 (2004); Republic of the Philippines v. Juan, 180 Phil. 398, 425-426 (1979), Urtula v. Republic of the Philippines, 130 Phil. 449, 453 (1968); Philippine Railway Company v. Solon, 13 Phil. 34, 41-42 (1909).
[16] G.R. No. 164195, 4 December 2009, 607 SCRA 200.
[17] Id. at 217.
[18] 443 Phil. 603 (2003).
[19] 433 Phil. 106, 123 (2002).
[20] Reyes v. National Housing Authority, supra at 616.
[21] Rollo, pp. 517-523.
[22] Pagsibigan v. People, G.R. No. 163868, 4 June 2009, 588 SCRA 249, 257.