Lawyerly

GR No. 180804

2012-11-12

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ROKAYA AND SULAIMAN BONA

PEREZ, J.

The same interpretation was arrived at in the subsequent decisions in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao;[44] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz;[45] LBP v. J. L. Jocson and Sons;[46] in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ferrer;[47] and more recently in the Land Bank of the Philippines v. Araneta.[48]

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. 174007

2012-06-27

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MANOLO V. GODUCO

PEREZ, J.

The same interpretation was arrived at in the subsequent decisions in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz;[36] in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ferrer;[37] and more recently in the Land Bank of the Philippines v. Araneta.[38]

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 Nos. 180772 and 180776

2010-05-06

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO

PEREZ, J.

Consequently, two divergent formulae arose which prompted the Court to come up with a categorical pronouncement that, if just compensation is not settled prior to the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with the said law, although the property was acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27. The fixing of just compensation should therefore be based on the parameters set out in Republic Act No. 6657, with Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 having only suppletory effect.[14]

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. 160394

2009-11-27

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN C. DIZON

BRION, J.

The RTC-SAC therefore (and the CA by affirming in toto the RTC-SAC ruling) erred in determining the just compensation due Dizon for his land. The LBP, on the other hand, did not present sufficient evidence for the RTC-SAC (and for this Court in this appeal) to make a complete and proper determination of just compensation due. Thus, the only recourse for us is to remand this case to the RTC, acting as SAC, for trial on the merits. This is in accord with our previous ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz[24] where we stated:A perusal of the PARAD decision, which was adopted by both the SAC and the CA, shows that its valuation of P80,000.00 per hectare is sorely lacking in evidentiary and legal basis. While the Court wants to fix just compensation due to respondents if only to write finis to the controversy, the evidence on record is not sufficient for the Court to do so in accordance with DAR AO No. 5, series of 1998. [Emphasis supplied].

GR No. 164025

2009-05-08

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF HONORATO DE LEON

TINGA, J.

Thus, the Court ruled in Paris v. Alfeche[17] that when the passage of R.A. No. 6657 supervened before the payment of just compensation, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 on just compensation would be applicable. The same pronouncement has been reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[18] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao,[19] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Domingo[20] and LBP v. Heirs of Cruz.[21]

	GR No. 180804 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ROKAYA AND SULAIMAN BONA PEREZ, J.
The same interpretation was arrived at in the subsequent decisions in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao;[44] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz;[45] LBP v. J. L. Jocson and Sons;[46] in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ferrer;[47] and more recently in the Land Bank of the Philippines v. Araneta.[48]
	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. 174007 2012-06-27	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MANOLO V. GODUCO PEREZ, J.
The same interpretation was arrived at in the subsequent decisions in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz;[36] in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ferrer;[37] and more recently in the Land Bank of the Philippines v. Araneta.[38]
	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 Nos. 180772 and 180776 2010-05-06	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO PEREZ, J.
Consequently, two divergent formulae arose which prompted the Court to come up with a categorical pronouncement that, if just compensation is not settled prior to the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with the said law, although the property was acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27. The fixing of just compensation should therefore be based on the parameters set out in Republic Act No. 6657, with Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 having only suppletory effect.[14]
	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. 160394 2009-11-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN C. DIZON BRION, J.
The RTC-SAC therefore (and the CA by affirming in toto the RTC-SAC ruling) erred in determining the just compensation due Dizon for his land. The LBP, on the other hand, did not present sufficient evidence for the RTC-SAC (and for this Court in this appeal) to make a complete and proper determination of just compensation due. Thus, the only recourse for us is to remand this case to the RTC, acting as SAC, for trial on the merits. This is in accord with our previous ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz[24] where we stated:A perusal of the PARAD decision, which was adopted by both the SAC and the CA, shows that its valuation of P80,000.00 per hectare is sorely lacking in evidentiary and legal basis. While the Court wants to fix just compensation due to respondents if only to write finis to the controversy, the evidence on record is not sufficient for the Court to do so in accordance with DAR AO No. 5, series of 1998. [Emphasis supplied].
	GR No. 164025 2009-05-08	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF HONORATO DE LEON TINGA, J.
Thus, the Court ruled in Paris v. Alfeche[17] that when the passage of R.A. No. 6657 supervened before the payment of just compensation, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 on just compensation would be applicable. The same pronouncement has been reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[18] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao,[19] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Domingo[20] and LBP v. Heirs of Cruz.[21]

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO CRUZ