Lawyerly

GR No. 172551

2014-01-15

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES

BRION, J.

We stressed the RTC-SAC's duty to apply the DAR formula in determining just compensation in Landbank of the Philippines v. Celada[31] and reiterated this same ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[32] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Luciano,[33] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Colarina,[34] to name a few.

GR No. 166259

2012-11-12

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION

BRION, J.

The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation has been reiterated recently in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[53] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,[54] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation,[55] where we also ordered the remand of the cases to the SAC for the determination of just compensation, strictly in accordance with the applicable DAR regulations.[56]

GR No. 184719

2012-03-21

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF JESUS S. YUJUICO

SERENO, J.

The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation was reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim[63] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,[64] wherein we also ordered the remand of the cases to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with the applicable DAR regulations.

GR No. 169903

2012-02-29

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION

BRION, J.

We reiterated the mandatory application of the formula in the applicable DAR administrative regulations in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[24] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,[25] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido.[26] In Barrido, we were explicit in stating that: While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court, the judge cannot abuse his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules. Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula laid down in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply it. The courts cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided by the DAR for the determination of just compensation.[27] (emphases ours)

GR No. 171685

2010-10-11

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. GLENN Y. ESCANDOR

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Likewise, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim[25] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,[26] the Court, reiterating the mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation, also ordered the remand of the cases to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with the applicable DAR regulation.[27]

GR No. 166461

2010-04-30

HEIRS OF LORENZO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES

CARPIO, J.

The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation has been reiterated recently in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim[73] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,[74] where we also ordered the remand of the cases to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with the applicable DAR regulations.

GR No. 177404

2009-12-04

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. KUMASSIE PLANTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the said Decision, we reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling on the amount of just compensation to be paid KPCI, pursuant to the compulsory acquisition of its 457-hectare landholding located in Basiawan, Santa Maria, Davao del Sur. We based our decision on the fact that the appellate court, as well as the Regional Trial Court (RTC), failed to consider the factors mentioned in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, and to apply the formula stated in Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order (DAO) No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by DAO No. 11, Series of 1994. In accordance with our rulings in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal[4] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[5] we held that the factors laid down in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 and the formula stated in DAO No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended, must be adhered to by courts in fixing the valuation of lands subject to acquisition under agrarian reform laws. These factors and formula are mandatory and not mere guides that the courts may disregard. Considering that the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) applied the factors and formula prescribed by law for the determination of just compensation, we rejected the RTC's valuation of KPCI's land at P100,000.00 per hectare, and approved the valuation made by LBP in the amount of P41,792.94 per hectare.

GR No. 165428

2009-11-25

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. TERESITA PANLILIO LUCIANO

PERALTA, J.

The mandatory application of the above-mentioned guidelines in determining just compensation was reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[22] wherein we ordered the remand of the case to the RTC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with DAR AO 6-92, as amended.[23]

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. 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 No. 164025

2009-05-08

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF HONORATO DE LEON

TINGA, J.

The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation has been reiterated recently in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim[25] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Cruz,[26] where the Court also ordered the remand of the cases to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with the applicable DAR regulation.

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.

The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation has been reiterated recently in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[39] where the Court ordered the remand of the case to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 1992, as amended.

GR No. 175175

2008-09-29

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO CRUZ

TINGA, J.

The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation has been reiterated recently in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[32] where the Court also ordered the remand of the case to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 1992, as amended.

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. 172551 2014-01-15	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES BRION, J.
We stressed the RTC-SAC's duty to apply the DAR formula in determining just compensation in Landbank of the Philippines v. Celada[31] and reiterated this same ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[32] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Luciano,[33] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Colarina,[34] to name a few.
	GR No. 166259 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION BRION, J.
The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation has been reiterated recently in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[53] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,[54] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation,[55] where we also ordered the remand of the cases to the SAC for the determination of just compensation, strictly in accordance with the applicable DAR regulations.[56]
	GR No. 184719 2012-03-21	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF JESUS S. YUJUICO SERENO, J.
The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation was reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim[63] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,[64] wherein we also ordered the remand of the cases to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with the applicable DAR regulations.
	GR No. 169903 2012-02-29	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION BRION, J.
We reiterated the mandatory application of the formula in the applicable DAR administrative regulations in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[24] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,[25] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido.[26] In Barrido, we were explicit in stating that: While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court, the judge cannot abuse his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules. Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula laid down in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply it. The courts cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided by the DAR for the determination of just compensation.[27] (emphases ours)
	GR No. 171685 2010-10-11	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. GLENN Y. ESCANDOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Likewise, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim[25] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,[26] the Court, reiterating the mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation, also ordered the remand of the cases to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with the applicable DAR regulation.[27]
	GR No. 166461 2010-04-30	HEIRS OF LORENZO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CARPIO, J.
The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation has been reiterated recently in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim[73] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,[74] where we also ordered the remand of the cases to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with the applicable DAR regulations.
	GR No. 177404 2009-12-04	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. KUMASSIE PLANTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the said Decision, we reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling on the amount of just compensation to be paid KPCI, pursuant to the compulsory acquisition of its 457-hectare landholding located in Basiawan, Santa Maria, Davao del Sur. We based our decision on the fact that the appellate court, as well as the Regional Trial Court (RTC), failed to consider the factors mentioned in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, and to apply the formula stated in Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order (DAO) No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by DAO No. 11, Series of 1994. In accordance with our rulings in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal[4] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[5] we held that the factors laid down in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 and the formula stated in DAO No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended, must be adhered to by courts in fixing the valuation of lands subject to acquisition under agrarian reform laws. These factors and formula are mandatory and not mere guides that the courts may disregard. Considering that the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) applied the factors and formula prescribed by law for the determination of just compensation, we rejected the RTC's valuation of KPCI's land at P100,000.00 per hectare, and approved the valuation made by LBP in the amount of P41,792.94 per hectare.
	GR No. 165428 2009-11-25	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. TERESITA PANLILIO LUCIANO PERALTA, J.
The mandatory application of the above-mentioned guidelines in determining just compensation was reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[22] wherein we ordered the remand of the case to the RTC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with DAR AO 6-92, as amended.[23]
	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. 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 No. 164025 2009-05-08	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF HONORATO DE LEON TINGA, J.
The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation has been reiterated recently in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim[25] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Cruz,[26] where the Court also ordered the remand of the cases to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with the applicable DAR regulation.
	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.
The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation has been reiterated recently in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[39] where the Court ordered the remand of the case to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 1992, as amended.
	GR No. 175175 2008-09-29	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO CRUZ TINGA, J.
The mandatory application of the aforementioned guidelines in determining just compensation has been reiterated recently in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[32] where the Court also ordered the remand of the case to the SAC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 1992, as amended.
	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.

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LUZ LIM