Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LANDBANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. VICENTE BANAL AND LEONIDAS ARENAS-BANAL

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 174647 2012-12-05	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ROSA AND PEDRO COSTO PERALTA, J.
Petitioner argues that contrary to the ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal,[13] the PARAD, the SAC, and the CA disregarded and did not follow the valuation factors under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 as translated into a basic formula in DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 5, Series of 1998 in fixing the just compensation of the subject property. In fine, petitioner insists that the PARAD, the SAC, and the CA, should have relied on the ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal in resolving the issue of just compensation.
	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. 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. 164195 2007-12-19	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
LBP next cites our decision in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal[15] to fortify its feeble stand. Again, we strike it down, as Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal is not on all fours with the present case. Notably, while Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal involves a determination of just compensation under Republic Act No. 6657, the valuation arrived at by the RTC acting as SAC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals was reversed by this Court on the following grounds:[T]he RTC failed to observe the basic rules of procedure and the fundamental requirements in determining just compensation for the property. Firstly, it dispensed with the hearing and merely ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda. Such action is grossly erroneous since the determination of just compensation involves the examination of the following factors specified in Section 17 of R.A. 6657, x x x.
	GR NO. 157903 2007-10-11	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. FEDERICO C. SUNTAY SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The procedure for the determination of just compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657, as summarized in Landbank of the Philippines v. Banal,[19] is that initially, the Land Bank is charged with the responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking under the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory acquisition arrangement.[20] The DAR, relying on the Land Bank's determination of the land valuation and compensation, then makes an offer through a notice sent to the landowner.[21] If the landowner accepts the offer, the Land Bank shall pay him the purchase price of the land after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer and surrenders the certificate of title in favor of the government.[22] In case the landowner rejects the offer or fails to reply thereto, the DAR adjudicator[23] conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the Land Bank and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land.[24] A party who disagrees with the Decision of the DAR adjudicator may bring the matter to the RTC designated as a Special Agrarian Court[25] for the determination of just compensation.[26] In determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider several factors enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657. These factors have been translated into a basic formula in DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by DAR A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994, issued pursuant to the DAR's rule-making power to carry out the object and purposes of R.A. No. 6657.
	GR NO. 157903 2007-10-11	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. FEDERICO C. SUNTAY SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The formula in determining the just compensation of the expropriated property, as laid down in Landbank of the Philippines v. Banal,[27] is as follows:LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
	GR NO. 171941 2007-08-02	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LUZ LIM CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Spouses Banal,[22] this Court underscored the mandatory nature of Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94, viz:In determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider several factors enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. 6657, as amended, thus: