Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LEONILA P. CELADA

This case has been cited 29 times or more.

	GR No. 182431 2013-02-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ESTHER ANSON RIVERA PEREZ, J.
In many cases[16] decided by this Court, it has been repeated time and again that the award of 12% interest is imposed in the nature of damages for delay in payment which in effect makes the obligation on the part of the government one of forbearance. This is to ensure prompt payment of the value of the land and limit the opportunity loss of the owner that can drag from days to decades.
	GR No. 174647 2012-12-05	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ROSA AND PEDRO COSTO PERALTA, J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[16] the Court ruled that the factors enumerated under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 had already been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. Thus, the Court held that the formula outlined in DAR AO No. 5, series of 1998, should be applied in computing just compensation.[17] DAR AO No. 5, series of 1998, provides: A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by VOS or CA:
	GR No. 176692 2012-06-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. VERONICA ATEGA NABLE BERSAMIN, J.
Nonetheless, LBP urges that the CA should have relied on the rulings in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal[23] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada[24] in resolving the issue of just compensation.
	GR No. 184719 2012-03-21	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF JESUS S. YUJUICO SERENO, J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[61] the Court ruled that the factors enumerated under Section 17 of R.A. 6657 had already been translated into a basic formula by the DAR as reflected in A.O. 5, which provides: A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by VOS or CA:
	GR No. 171840 2011-04-04	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada[22] we held that the above provision is implemented by DAR AO No. 5, series of 1998,[23] thus: While SAC is required to consider the acquisition cost of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declaration and the assessments made by the government assessors to determine just compensation, it is equally true that these factors have been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making powers under Section 49 of RA No. 6657. As the government agency principally tasked to implement the agrarian reform program, it is the DAR's duty to issue rules and regulations to carry out the object of the law. DAR AO No. 5, s. of 1998 precisely "filled in the details" of Section 17, RA No. 6657 by providing a basic formula by which the factors mentioned therein may be taken into account. The SAC was at no liberty to disregard the formula which was devised to implement the said provision.[24 ](Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 166298 2010-11-17	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. JOEL R. UMANDAP AND FELICIDAD D. UMANDAP LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
3. In the 2006 case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[33] this Court upheld the jurisdiction of the SAC despite the pendency of administrative proceedings before the DARAB. We held: It would be well to emphasize that the taking of property under RA No. 6657 is an exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State. The valuation of property or determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the courts and not with administrative agencies. Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of respondent's petition for determination of just compensation.[34]
	GR No. 171685 2010-10-11	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. GLENN Y. ESCANDOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Subsequently, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[23] we held that the factors enumerated under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 had already been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. Thus, the formula outlined in DAR AO No. 05, series of 1998[24] should be applied in computing just compensation, to wit: LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1) Where: LV = Land Value
	GR No. 171685 2010-10-11	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. GLENN Y. ESCANDOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the matter of interest on the final compensation, we are unable to agree with the CA's position that it is automatically awarded in agrarian cases involving lands placed under CARP. As we held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada[33]: Finally, there is no basis for the SAC's award of 12% interest per annum in favor of respondent. Although in some expropriation cases, the Court allowed the imposition of said interest, the same was in the nature of damages for delay in payment which in effect makes the obligation on the part of the government one of forbearance. In this case, there is no delay that would justify the payment of interest since the just compensation due to respondent has been promptly and validly deposited in her name in cash and LBP bonds. Neither is there factual or legal justification for the award of attorney's fees and costs of litigation in favor of respondent. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 177511 2010-06-29	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. FORTUNE SAVINGS ABAD, J.
The taking of property under the CARL is a government exercise of the power of eminent domain. Since the determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is a judicial function, such determination cannot be made to depend on the existence of administrative proceedings of a similar nature. Thus, even while the DARAB summary administrative hearing for determination of just compensation is pending, the interested party may file a petition for judicial determination of the same.[10] In another case, the Court allowed the filing with the trial court of a petition to fix just compensation despite failure of the landowner to seek reconsideration of the DAR's valuation.[11]
	GR Nos. 180772 and 180776 2010-05-06	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO PEREZ, J.
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration[15]
	GR No. 166461 2010-04-30	HEIRS OF LORENZO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CARPIO, J.
It must be emphasized that the taking of property under RA 6657 is an exercise of the State's power of eminent domain.[55] The valuation of property or determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the courts and not with administrative agencies.[56] When the parties cannot agree on the amount of just compensation, only the exercise of judicial power can settle the dispute with binding effect on the winning and losing parties. On the other hand, the determination of just compensation in the RARAD/DARAB requires the voluntary agreement of the parties. Unless the parties agree, there is no settlement of the dispute before the RARAD/DARAB, except if the aggrieved party fails to file a petition for just compensation on time before the RTC.
	GR No. 177404 2009-12-04	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. KUMASSIE PLANTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Anent the first ground cited by KPCI, suffice it to state that while the determination of just compensation involves the exercise of judicial discretion, such discretion must nonetheless be discharged within the bounds of law.[6] It must be stressed that DAO No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended, partakes of the nature of a statute, as it was issued to carry out the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657. The DAR valuation formula embodied in the said administrative order was devised to implement Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657. Thus, courts are bound by the formula unless and until the same is invalidated in appropriate proceedings.[7]
	GR No. 175644 2009-10-02	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSE MARIE M. RUFINO CARPIO MORALES, J.
While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function which is vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court, the Court, in LBP v. Banal,[20] LBP v. Celada,[21] and LBP v. Lim,[22] nonetheless disregarded the RTC's determination thereof when, as in the present case, the judge did not fully consider the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules.
	GR No. 164631 2009-06-26	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RENE RALLA BELISTA PERALTA, J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[11] where the issue was whether the SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction over respondent's petition for determination of just compensation despite the pendency of the administrative proceedings before the DARAB, the Court stated that:It would be well to emphasize that the taking of property under RA No. 6657 is an exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State. The valuation of property or determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the courts and not with administrative agencies. Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of respondent's petition for determination of just compensation.[12]
	GR No. 177404 2009-06-25	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. KUMASSIE PLANTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function which is vested in the RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court, we, nonetheless, disregarded the determination of just compensation made by the RTC in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal,[40] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[41] and in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[42] when, as in this case, the judge gravely abused his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules.
	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
But not the RTC which, needless to stress, does not look up to the President as administrative head in the first place. Any valuation or standard that may be set forth in AO 50 for just compensation may serve only as guiding norm or one of the factors in arriving at an ideal amount. But it may not take the place of the court's own disposition as to what amount should be paid and how to arrive at such amount.[114] After all, the determination of just compensation in expropriation cases is a judicial function.[115] AO 50, or any executive issuance for that matter, cannot decree that the executive, or the department's own determination, shall have primacy over the court's findings.[116] These pronouncements can, however, be applied only to pending condemnation proceedings prior to November 26, 2000 when RA 8974 took effect. As of that date, RA 8974 had repealed AO 50 for being inconsistent with the said law.
	GR No. 164025 2009-05-08	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF HONORATO DE LEON TINGA, J.
Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of the like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessments 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. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, the Court ruled that the factors enumerated under Section 17, R.A. No. 6657 had already been translated into a basic formula by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. Thus, the Court held in Celada that the formula outlined in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998 should be applied in computing just compensation.[22]
	GR No. 175422 2009-03-13	ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function which is vested in the RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court,[12] nevertheless, this Court disregarded the determination of just compensation made by the RTC in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Spouses Banal,[13] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[14] and in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[15] when, as in this case, the judge gravely abused his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors enumerated in the agrarian law and further detailed by the DAR administrative order implementing the same.
	GR No. 173226 2009-01-20	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL O. GALLEGO TINGA, J.
While the SAC is required to consider the acquisition cost of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declaration and the assessments made by the government assessors to determine just compensation, it is equally true that these factors have been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657.[36] In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[37] the Court upheld the applicability of DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 5, series of 1998 in determining just compensation.
	GR No. 173226 2009-01-20	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL O. GALLEGO TINGA, J.
While the SAC is required to consider the acquisition cost of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declaration and the assessments made by the government assessors to determine just compensation, it is equally true that these factors have been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657.[36] In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[37] the Court upheld the applicability of DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 5, series of 1998 in determining just compensation.
	GR No. 167809 2008-11-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO REYES, R.T., J.
While the determination of just compensation involves the exercise of judicial discretion, such discretion must be discharged within the bounds of the law.[73] The DAR, as the government agency principally tasked to implement the agrarian reform program, has the duty to issue rules and regulations to carry out the object of the law. The DAR administrative orders precisely filled in the details of Section 17 of RA No. 6657 by providing a basic formula by which the factors mentioned in the provision may be taken into account.[74] Special agrarian courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula devised to implement the said provision because unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply it.[75]
	GR No. 164964 2008-10-17	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. MARIA BAGUI TINGA, J.
Moreover, Section 3A-(b) of R.A. No. 6395, as amended, is not binding on the Court. It has been repeatedly emphasized that the determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function[45] and that any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes may serve only as a guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation but it may not substitute the court's own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount.[46]
	GR No. 175175 2008-09-29	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO CRUZ TINGA, J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[29] the Court ruled that the factors enumerated under Section 17, R.A. No. 6657 had already been translated into a basic formula by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. Thus, the Court held in Celada that the formula outlined in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998[30] should be applied in computing just compensation.
	GR No. 164195 2008-04-30	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to LBP's Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 19 December 2007 denying its Motion for the referral of the case to the Supreme Court en banc, LBP argues that the reversal of the Supreme Court's rulings in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Sps. Banal,[11] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada[12] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[13] constitute a clear and significant constitutional issue that should be passed upon by this Court sitting en banc pursuant to Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the 1987 Constitution mandating that "no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc." The argument of LBP is without basis.
	GR NO. 154243 2007-12-04	DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL ROBERTO LASTIMOSO v. P & SENIOR INSPECTOR JOSE J. ASAYO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With the foregoing peculiar circumstances in this case, respondent should not be deprived of the opportunity to fully ventilate his arguments against the factual findings of the PNP Chief. He may file an appeal before the NAB, pursuant to Section 45, R.A. No. 6925. It is a settled jurisprudence that in administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.[8] In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[9] the Court stressed thus:After all, technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily devised to help in the proper and expedient dispensation of justice. In appropriate cases, therefore, the rules may be construed liberally in order to meet and advance the cause of substantial justice.[10]
	GR NO. 157903 2007-10-11	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. FEDERICO C. SUNTAY SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[13] we held that Section 50 must be construed in harmony with Section 57 by considering cases involving the determination of just compensation and criminal cases for violations of R.A. No. 6657 as excepted from the plenitude of power conferred upon the DAR. Indeed, there is a reason for this distinction. The DAR is an administrative agency which cannot be granted jurisdiction over cases of eminent domain (such as taking of land under R.A. No. 6657) and over criminal cases. Thus, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada[14] Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay,[15] and Sumulong v. Guerrero,[16] we held that the valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial function which cannot be vested in administrative agencies. Also, in Scoty's Department Store, et al. v. Micaller,[17] we struck down a law granting the then Court of Industrial Relations jurisdiction to try criminal cases for violations of the Industrial Peace Act.[18]
	GR NO. 171941 2007-08-02	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LUZ LIM CARPIO MORALES, J.
And in LBP v. Celada,[23] this Court set aside the valuation fixed by the RTC of Tagbilaran, which was based solely on the valuation of neighboring properties, because it did not apply the DAR valuation formula. The Court explained:While [the RTC] is required to consider the acquisition cost of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declaration and the assessments made by the government assessors to determine just compensation, it is equally true that these factors have been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. As the government agency principally tasked to implement the agrarian reform program, it is the DAR's duty to issue rules and regulations to carry out the object of the law. [The] DAR [Administrative Order] precisely "filled in the details" of Section 17, R.A. No. 6657 by providing a basic formula by which the factors mentioned therein may be taken into account. The [RTC] was at no liberty to disregard the formula which was devised to implement the said provision.
	GR NO. 170220 2006-11-20	JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Corollarily, we held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada[33] that the above provision was converted into a formula by the DAR through Administrative Order No. 05, S. 1998, to wit: Land Value (LV) = (Capitalized Net Income x 0.6) + (Comparable Sales x 0.3) + (Market Value per Tax Declaration x 0.1)