THIRD
DIVISION
|
LAND BANK OF THE Petitioner, - versus
- PACITA AGRICULTURAL MULTI-PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE, INC., represented by its President, AGNES CUENCA and its
Manager, Hon. MARCELO AGUIRRE, JR., Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 177607 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and
DE CASTRO,* JJ. Promulgated: January 19, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review
on Certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Decision[2]
dated
The factual antecedents of the case
are as follows:
The eight
parcels of land disputed in this case are all located in Barangay Ayungon, La
Carlota City, Negros Occidental, and contain an aggregate area of 34.95 hectares, more or less (collectively
referred to herein as the subject property). The subject property was previously covered
by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) No. T-567, No. T-1203, No. T-1204, No.
T-1205, No. T-1208, No. T-1209, No. T-1210, and No. T-1213 of the Registry of
Deeds for the City of
Sometime in 1972, the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) acquired the subject property under its Operation Land Transfer
Program, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27.[5] The subject property was thereafter
distributed to farmer-beneficiaries.
From the years 1978 to 1983, Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) were
issued to the said beneficiaries, and from the years 1986 to 1990, the
corresponding Emancipation Patents (EPs) were granted.[6]
On 10 February 1986 and 3 March 1987, petitioner Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) paid in favor of the AAC the amount of P35,778.70, the
value of only two out of the eight parcels of land comprising the subject
property taken by the DAR in 1972, particularly, those covered by TCTs No.
T-567 and No. T-1205.[7]
On
On P148,172.21.[10] Respondent, however, refused to accept this
valuation.
In the
interregnum, Republic Act No. 6657[11]
was signed into law by then President Corazon Aquino. The said law took effect on
In a
Memorandum[16]
dated P148,172.21. In the same
Memorandum, petitioner required respondent to submit certain documentary
requirements so that full payment for the subject property could be finally
effected. Respondent, through counsel,
protested petitioner’s proposed value for the remainder of the subject property
and requested a revaluation.[17]
In October
1994, the DAR issued Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1994 (A. O. No.
13),[18]
which imposed, on the value of land not yet paid to the landowner, an increment
of six percent (6%) yearly interest, compounded from the date of coverage, with
21 October 1972 as the earliest date, up to 21 October 1994.
Petitioner
then adjusted its proposed valuation for the remaining portions of the subject
property by adding the increment provided under A. O. No. 13, thus, increasing
the same to P537,538.34.[19] Respondent still rejected the said amount,
contending that petitioner committed a mistake in computing the increment.
Feeling
aggrieved and without any other recourse, respondent filed, on
In an Order
dated P2,763,622.50[22]
or higher. In the alternative,
respondent prayed that Executive Order No. 228 and A.O. No. 13 be declared
unconstitutional for being violative of the due process clause of the
Constitution and the principle of just compensation.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. The [herein petitioner], Land Bank of the Philippines, is hereby ordered to pay [herein respondent] for the remaining 26.2514 hectares of rice land taken under Presidential Decree No. 27 in October 1972, valuated at 112.5 cavans of 50 kilo palay per sack per hectare, and computed in accordance with Executive Order No. 228, plus [an] increment of six percent (6%) interest and compounded per annum effective October 21, 1972 until fully paid;[23]
2. The rights acquired by the farmer beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be recognized and respected; and
3. No pronouncement as to costs.[24]
Respondent filed a Motion for Clarificatory Order,[25]
alleging that the Decision of the SAC merely provided for a formula to be used
in determining the value of the land but did not provide the exact amount
therefor. Acting thereon, the SAC issued
a Clarificatory Order[26]
on
WHEREFORE, par. (1) of the
dispositive portion of the DECISION dated
1) The [herein petitioner], Land Bank of the Philippines, is hereby
ordered to pay [herein respondent] for the remaining 28.2514 hectares of rice
land taken under Presidential Decree No. 27 on October 21, 1972 valuated at
112.5 cavans of 50-kilo palay per
sack per hectare and computed in accordance with Executive Order No. 228, plus
increment of six (6%) percent interests (sic) and compounded per annum
effective October 21, 1972 until fully paid, and with the present accrued
amount of P506,649.28.
Unsatisfied, respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[27]
of the SAC Decision dated
Respondent, thus, filed an Appeal with the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 73774.
On
We find for the
[herein respondent].
There is no
doubt that PD 27 and the implementing rule EO 228 are constitutional. Their constitutionality has been upheld in
the landmark case of Association of Small
Landowners vs. DAR and reiterated in a long line of cases. That notwithstanding, this Court opines that
the application of the formula under PD 27 and EO 228 in arriving at the just
compensation in the case at bar is not only unjust, but is also oppressive to
the rights of [respondent].
Be it noted that
the lands subject matter of this case were taken in 1972, but remained unpaid
to this day. The compensation offered by
the [herein petitioner] in the amount of P148,172.21 for the remaining lands
was based on the land valuation some 20 years ago, at the time of its taking
in 1972, pursuant to PD 27. EO 228, series of 1987 declared that the
valuation of rice and corn lands covered by PD 27 shall be based on the average gross production determined by
the Barangay Committee on Land Production in accordance with Department Memo
Circular No. 26, series of 1973 and related issuances and regulation (sic) of
the DAR. The average gross production per hectare shall be multiplied by two and a half (2.5), the product of which shall be multiplied by thirty-five pesos (P35.00),
government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay on October 21, 1972, or thirty-one
pesos (P31.00), the government support price for one cavan of 50
kilos of corn on October 21, 1972, and the amount arrived at shall be the value
of the rice and corn land, as the case may be, for the purpose of determining
its cost to the farmer and compensation to the land owner (sic). Following a literal interpretation of said
rule, the price of rice and corn lands today would be based on prices 20 years
ago. If such were the case, it would
clearly result in an injustice to the landowner. No further argument is needed to illustrate
the unjustness of fixing the price of palay
at P35.00 per cavan even if the
payment will be made now.
The
determination of just compensation under PD 27 is not final or conclusive. Determination of just compensation is a
judicial prerogative. Section 2 of
Executive Order No. 228, however, may serve as a guiding principle, or one of
the factors in determining just compensation, but may not substitute the
court’s own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at
such amount. A perusal of the assailed
decision shows that in arriving at the just compensation to be paid to the
landowner, the lower court strictly applied the provisions of PD 27 and EO 228,
anchoring its argument solely on the ground that the lands were taken pursuant
to the said law, and even went on to state that the courts in treating the
valuation under PD 27 are bound by the formula set by law and there is not much
room for discretion as in the cases under the CARP. To reiterate, the determination of just
compensation is a task unmistakably within the prerogative of the courts. In determining just compensation, not only
must the courts consider the value of the land, but also other factors as well,
in accordance with the particular circumstances of each case. The resolution of just compensation cases for
the taking of lands under agrarian reform is, after all, essentially a judicial
function.
Pertinent hereto
is the recent case of Land Bank of the
“Land Bank’s contention that
the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on October 21, 1972,
the time of the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just compensation should be based on
the value of the property as of that time and not at the time of possession in
1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office of the President, Malacañang,
Under the factual
circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as
the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be
settled. Considering the passage of
Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) before the completion of this process, the just
compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said
law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable
law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect.
x x x x
That just compensation
should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 and EO 228, is
especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and
fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent
being real, substantial, full and ample.”[29]
(Emphasis ours.)
Moreover,
Section 75 of RA 6657 clearly states that the provisions of PD 27 and EO 228
shall only have a suppletory effect.
Section 7 of the Act also provides –
“SECTION 7. Priorities. – The DAR, in coordination with
the PARC shall plan and program the acquisition and distribution of all
agricultural lands through a period of 10 year from the effectivity of this
Act. Lands shall be acquired and
distributed as follows:
Phase One: Rice and Corn lands under P.D. 27; all idle
or abandoned lands; all private lands voluntarily offered by the owners for
agrarian reform; . . . and all other lands owned by the government devoted to
or suitable for agriculture, which shall be acquired and distributed
immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be
completed within a period of not more than four (4) years.”
This eloquently
demonstrates that RA 6657 includes PD 27 lands among the properties which the
DAR shall acquire and distribute to the landless. And to facilitate the acquisition and
distribution thereof, Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act should be adhered
to. In Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines vs. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform[,] this Court applied the provisions of RA 6657 to rice and
corn lands when it upheld the constitutionality of the payment of just
compensation for PD 27 lands through the different modes stated in Sec. 18.”
(sic)[30]
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals disposed of the case in
this manner:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant case
is hereby remanded to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54,
Petitioner moved for
the reconsideration[32]
of the afore-quoted Decision, but the appellate court denied the same in its
assailed Order dated
Petitioner, thus, filed the Petition at bar, contending that the Court of Appeals committed serious errors of law in the following instances:
I.
WHEN IT RENDERED THE
QUESTIONED DECISION RETROACTIVELY APPLYING R.A. NO. 6657 TO A LAND ACQUIRED
UNDER P.D. NO. 27/E.O. NO. 228, IN EFFECT DISREGARDING THE AFOREMENTIONED LAWS
AND THE SUPREME COURT RULING IN G.R. NO. 148223 TITLED (sic) “FERNANDO GABATIN, ET AL., VS. LAND BANK OF
THE
II.
WHEN IT FAILED TO TAKE
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE TO (sic) THE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PRICE (GSP) FOR [PALAY] PRESCRIBED IN P.D. NO. 27/E.O.
NO. 228 AMOUNTING TO THIRTY FIVE PESOS (PHP 35.00) FOR ONE (1) CAVAN OF 50
KILOS OF [PALAY].
III.
WHEN
IT CONSIDERED P.D. NO. 27/E.O. 228 INFERIOR TO R.A. NO. 6657 NOTWITHSTANDING
THE SUPREME COURT RULING IN SIGRE VS. COURT OF APPEALS THAT THESE LAWS OPERATE
DISTINCTLY FROM EACH OTHER.
Petitioner challenges
the ruling of the Court of Appeals insofar as it retroactively applied Republic
Act No. 6657 to the instant case, in spite of the fact that the said law does
not provide for any retroactive application.
Petitioner argues that the
The instant Petition is without merit.
Under Presidential Decree No. 27,
Executive Order No. 228[35]
and A.O. No. 13, the following formula is used to compute the land value for palay:
Where:
AGP = Average Gross Production in cavan of 50 kilos in accordance with
DAR Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973,
P35
= Government Support Price for palay in 1972 pursuant to Executive Order No. 228,
n = number of years from date of
tenancy up to effectivity date of A. O. No. 13.
On the other hand, Section 18 of Republic Act No. 6657
mandates that the LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may be
agreed upon by the landowner, the DAR and the LBP or as may be finally
determined by the court as the just compensation for the land. According to Section 17 of Republic Act No.
6657, 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 assessment 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 Gabatin v. Land
Bank of the Philippines,[36]
the formula under Presidential
Decree No. 27, Executive Order No. 228 and A.O. No. 13 was applied. In Gabatin,
the crux of the case was the valuation of the GSP for one cavan of palay. In said case, the SAC fixed the government
support price (GSP) of palay at the current price of P400 as
basis for the computation of the payment, and not the GSP at the time of the taking
in 1972. On appeal by therein respondent
Land Bank of the
We must stress,
at the outset, that the taking of private lands under the agrarian reform
program partakes of the nature of an expropriation proceeding. In a number of cases, we have stated that in
computing the just compensation for expropriation proceedings, it is the value
of the land at the time of the taking, not at the time of the rendition of
judgment, which should be taken into consideration. This being so, then in
determining the value of the land for the payment of just compensation, the
time of taking should be the basis. In the instant case, since the
dispute over the valuation of the land depends on the rate of the GSP used in
the equation, it necessarily follows that the GSP should be pegged at the time
of the taking of the properties.
In
the instant case, the said taking of the properties was deemed effected on
Since Gabatin,
however, the Court has decided several cases in which it found it more
equitable to determine just compensation based on the value of said property at
the time of payment, foremost of which is Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Natividad,[38]
cited by the Court of Appeals in its Decision assailed herein.
In Natividad, the parcels of agricultural land involved were
acquired from their owners for purposes of agrarian reform on
Land Bank’s
contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on
October 21, 1972, the time of the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just
compensation should be based on the value of the property as of that time and
not at the time of possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office of the President, Malacañang,
Under the
factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still
incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to
be settled. Considering the passage of
Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) before the completion of this process, the just
compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said
law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable
law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our
ruling in
Section 17 of
RA 6657 which is particularly relevant, providing as it does the guideposts for
the determination of just compensation, reads as follows:
Sec. 17. Determination of
Just Compensation. - In determining just compensation, the cost of
acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature,
actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations,
and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered. The social
and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm-workers 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.
It would
certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline
provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR’s failure to determine the
just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation should be
determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially
imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the
equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.[39]
(Emphases ours.)
In Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,[40] the
Court applied its ruling in Natividad. The landowners in Meneses were
likewise deprived of their property in 1972, which land has since been
distributed and titles already distributed to farmer-beneficiaries in accordance
with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No.
228. However, up to the year
1993, no payment or rentals were made for the land. Thus, the landowners filed a complaint for determination and payment of just
compensation. The trial court ruled that since the
land was taken from the owners on
The Court also
finds that the CA erred in sustaining the RTC ruling that just compensation in
this case should be based on the value of the property at the time of taking,
Respondent
correctly cited the case of Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines [444
SCRA 176], where the Court ruled that "in computing the just compensation
for expropriation proceedings, it is the value of the land at the time of the
taking (or October 21, 1972, the effectivity date of P.D. No. 27), not at the
time of the rendition of judgment, which should be taken into consideration.” x
x x.
It should also
be pointed out, however, that in the more recent case of Land Bank of the
Philippines vs. Natividad, [458 SCRA 441] the Court categorically ruled:
"the seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of
effectivity of P.D. No. 27 but would take effect on the payment of just
compensation." x x x.
Under the
circumstances of this case, the Court deems it more equitable to apply the
ruling in the Natividad case. x x x.
x x x x
As previously
noted, the property was expropriated under the Operation Land Transfer scheme
of P.D. No. 27 way back in 1972. More than 30 years have passed and petitioners
are yet to benefit from it, while the farmer-beneficiaries have already been
harvesting its produce for the longest time. Events have rendered the
applicability of P.D. No. 27 inequitable. Thus, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657
should apply in this case.[41]
In the even more recent case, Lubrica
v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[42] the Court
also adhered to Natividad, viz:
The Natividad
case reiterated the Court's ruling in Office of the President v. Court of
Appeals [413 Phil. 711] that
the expropriation of the landholding did not take place on the effectivity of
P.D. No. 27 on
Likewise, in
the recent case of Heirs of Francisco R. Tantoco, Sr. v. Court of Appeals [489 SCRA 590], we held that
expropriation of landholdings covered by R.A. No. 6657 take place, not on the
effectivity of the Act on
In the
instant case, petitioners were deprived of their properties in 1972 but have
yet to receive the just compensation therefor. The parcels of land were already
subdivided and distributed to the farmer-beneficiaries thereby immediately
depriving petitioners of their use. Under the circumstances, it would be highly
inequitable on the part of the petitioners to compute the just compensation
using the values at the time of the taking in 1972, and not at the time of the
payment, considering that the government and the farmer-beneficiaries have
already benefited from the land although ownership thereof have not yet been
transferred in their names. Petitioners were deprived of their properties
without payment of just compensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite
before the property can be taken away from its owners. The transfer of
possession and ownership of the land to the government are conditioned upon the
receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of
the compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the
landowner.
Our ruling in
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform [175 SCRA 343] is instructive, thus:
It is true that P.D. No. 27
expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer as October 21, 1972 and
declared that he shall "be deemed the owner" of a portion of land
consisting of a family-sized farm except that "no title to the land owned
by him was to be actually issued to him unless and until he had become a
full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmer's cooperative." It was
understood, however, that full payment of the just compensation also had to be
made first, conformably to the constitutional requirement.
When E.O. No. 228,
categorically stated in its Section 1 that:
All qualified
farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full owners as of
it was obviously referring
to lands already validly acquired under the said decree, after proof of
full-fledged membership in the farmers' cooperatives and full payment of just
compensation. x x x.[43]
The instant case involves a closely similar factual milieu as that in Natividad
and Meneses. The DAR acquired the
subject property in 1972 through its Operation Land Transfer Program, pursuant
to Presidential Decree No. 27. Since
then, the subject property has already been distributed to the
farmer-beneficiaries who, since then, have exclusively possessed the same and
harvested its produce. Eventually, the Emancipation
Patents were issued in the beneficiaries’ favor. Even after the lapse of 23 years – from 1972,
when the DAR took the subject land property, until 1995, when respondent filed
its Petition before the SAC - the full payment of just compensation due
respondent has yet to be made by petitioner.
These circumstances, the same as in Natividad and Meneses,
make it more equitable for the SAC to determine the just compensation due the
respondent for the remainder of the subject property using values at the time
of its payment.
WHEREFORE, in
light of the foregoing, the Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* Per Special Order No. 546, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro is designated to sit as an additional member of this division in view of the retirement of Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes.
[1] Rollo, pp. 24-58.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 10-18.
[3]
[4] Penned by Judge Demosthenes L. Magallanes; id. at 141-147.
[5] DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE OF THE SOIL, TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY TILL AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM THEREFOR.
[6] Records, pp. 98-149.
[7] Rollo, pp. 123 and 251.
[8] The Deed of Absolute Sale between the parties was not attached to the records of this case, but the sale is not disputed by any of the parties herein; id. at 351.
[9] The letter was actually addressed to Mr. Juancho G. Aguirre who was designated therein as the Vice President of the Ayungon Agricultural Corporation (id. at 122). In its Memorandum before this Court, however, respondent states that the said letter was sent to them (id. at 352).
[10] Petitioner arrived at this figure
by, first, multiplying 34.8397 (the total area transferred, in hectares) by P8,000
(the price per hectare of the land). The
resulting product will then be equal to P278, 717.6 (the land value). [34.8397
x P8,000 = P278, 717.60].
From the above product, the amount of P94,766.69
(lease rentals paid by the farmer-beneficiaries to the landowner) will be
deducted. The difference will then be
equal to P183,950.91 (the total net land value). [P278, 717.6
- P94,766.69 = P183,950.91].
Finally, from the above difference, the amount of P35,778.70
(payments made by Land Bank for the first two parcels of land) will be deducted.
The resulting difference will then be equal to P148,172.21
(balance). [P183,950.91 - P35,778.70
= P148,172.21].
[11] The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
[12] Section 2, Republic Act No. 6657.
[13] DECLARING FULL LAND OWNERSHIP TO
QUALIFIED FARMER-BENEFICIARIES COVERED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27;
DETERMINING THE VALUE OF REMAINING UNVALUED RICE AND
[14] PROVIDING FOR THE MECHANISM FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM. (
[15] Land
Bank of the
[16] Rollo, p. 123.
[17]
[18] RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE GRANT OF INCREMENT OF SIX PERCENT (6%) YEARLY INTEREST COMPOUNDED ANNUALLY ON LANDS COVERED UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27 AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 228; id. at 237-238.
[19] The amount of P388,487.73 was
added to P148,172.21; id. at
128-129.
[20] Records, pp. 2-8.
[21]
[22] Respondent arrived at the amount of
P2,763,622.50 by using the following formula provided for in A.
O. No. 13 and E. O. No. 228, namely:
P35) x (1.06)ⁿ,
where:
AGP = Average Gross Production in cavan of 50 kilos in accordance with DAR Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973,
P35
= Government Support Price for palay in 1972 pursuant to E. O. No. 228,
n = number of years from date of tenancy up to the effectivity date of A. O. No. 13.
Thus,
P35) x (1.06)ⁿ
= (2.5 x 45 x P35) x (1.06)(22)
P97,822.50
The above result was multiplied by 30 (number of hectares of land covered by the title still unpaid for. Thus:
P97,822.50 x 30 = P2,763,622.50
(Records, p. 114).
[24] Rollo, p. 147.
[25] Records, pp. 383-385.
[26]
[27] Rollo, pp. 183-187.
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33] G.R. No. 148223,
[34] SEC. 75. Suppletory Application of Existing Legislation. -The provisions of Republic Act No. 3844 as amended, Presidential Decree Nos. 27 and 266 as amended, Executive Order Nos. 228 and 229, both Series of 1987; and other laws not inconsistent with this Act shall have suppletory effect.
[35] Under Section 2, E.O. No. 228, the value of rice and
corn lands is determined as follows:
Sec. 2. Henceforth, the valuation of rice and corn lands covered by P.D.
No. 27 shall be based on the average gross production determined by the Barangay Committee on Land Production in
accordance with Department Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973, and
related issuances and regulations of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
The average gross production per hectare shall be multiplied by two and a half
(2.5), the product of which shall be multiplied by Thirty-Five Pesos (P35), the
government support price for one cavan
of 50 kilos of palay on October 21,
1972, or Thirty-One Pesos (P31), the government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of corn on October 21,
1972, and the amount arrived at shall be the value of the rice and corn land,
as the case may be, for the purpose of determining its cost to the farmer and
compensation to the landowner.
[36] Supra note 33.
[37]
[38] G.R. No. 127198,
[39]
[40] G.R. No. 156304,
[41]
[42] G.R. No. 170220,
[43]