|
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, - versus - JOSE MARIE M. RUFINO, NILO M. RESURRECCION,
ARNEL M. ATANACIO and SUZETTE G. MATEO, Respondents, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, represented by OIC-SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, Petitioner, - versus - JOSE MARIE M. RUFINO, NILO
M. RESURRECCION, ARNEL M. ATANACIO and SUZETTE G. MATEO, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 175644
G.R. No. 175702 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,* J., CARPIO
MORALES,**
Acting Chairperson, PERALTA,*** DEL
CASTILLO, and ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: October 2, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Challenged in these consolidated
Petitions for Review is the December 15, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals[1]
in CA-G.R. CV No. 69640 affirming with modification that of Branch 52 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon in Civil Case No. 98-6438 setting
the valuation of respondents’ 138.4018-hectare land taken under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) at P29,926,000, exclusive
of the value of secondary crops thereon.
Respondents Jose Marie M. Rufino
(Rufino), Nilo M. Resurreccion (Resureccion), Arnel M. Atanacio (Atanacio), and
Suzette G. Mateo (Suzette) are the registered owners in equal share of a parcel
of agricultural land situated in Barangay San Benon, Irosin, Sorsogon, with an
area of 239.7113 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
T-22934.[2]
By
respondents’ claim, in 1989, they voluntarily offered the aforesaid property to
the government for CARP coverage at P120,000 per hectare. Acting thereon, petitioner Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued a Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition dated
October 21, 1996 declaring that out of the total area indicated in the title, 138.4018
hectares was subject to immediate acquisition at a valuation of P8,736,270.40
based on the assessment of petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).
Respondents
having found the valuation unacceptable, the matter was referred by the
provincial agrarian reform officer of Sorsogon to the DAR Adjudication Board
(DARAB) for the conduct of summary administrative proceedings to determine just
compensation.[3]
By
Decision of November 21, 1997,[4]
the DARAB sustained LBP’s valuation upon respondents’ failure to present any
evidence to warrant an increase thereof.
Meanwhile,
upon the DAR’s application, accompanied with LBP’s certification of deposit of
payment, the Register of Deeds of
Sorsogon partially cancelled TCT No. T-22934 corresponding to the 138.4018-hectare
covered area (hereafter the property) and issued TCT No. T-47571 in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines (the Republic).
The Republic thereupon subdivided the property into 85 lots for distribution
to qualified farmer-beneficiaries under Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.[5]
On
February 23, 1998, respondents lodged with Branch 52 of the Sorsogon RTC
(acting as a Special Agrarian Court) a complaint for determination of just
compensation against Ernesto Garilao, in his capacity as then DAR Secretary,
and LBP. Respondents contended that
LBP’s valuation was not the full and fair equivalent of the property at the
time of its taking, the same having been offered in 1989 at P120,000 per hectare.[6]
LBP
countered that the property was acquired by the DAR for CARP coverage in 1993
by compulsory acquisition and not by respondents’ voluntary offer to sell; and
that it determined the valuation thereof in accordance with RA 6657 and
pertinent DAR regulations.[7]
The
DAR Secretary argued that LBP’s valuation was properly based on DAR issuances.[8]
The
trial court appointed the parties’ respective nominated commissioners to
appraise the property.
Commissioner
Jesus S. Empleo, LBP’s nominee, appraised the property based on, among
other things, the applicable DAR issuances, average gross production, and
prevailing selling prices of the crops planted thereon which included coconut,
abaca, coffee, and rice. He arrived at a
valuation of P13,449,579.08.[9]
Commissioner Amando Chua of Cuervo
Appraisers, Inc., respondents’ nominee, used the market data approach which relies primarily on sales and listings
of comparable lots in the neighborhood.
Excluding the secondary crops planted thereon, he valued the property at
P29,925,725.[10]
At
the witness stand, Eugenio Mateo, Sr. (Mateo), attorney-in-fact of respondents
Rufino, Resurreccion, and Atanacio, declared that Commissioner Chua erroneously
considered the secondary crops as merely enhancing the demand for the property
without them significantly increasing its value; and that the coffee
intercropping on the property which yielded
an estimated profit of P3,000,000, spread over a 12-year period, should
be considered in the determination of just compensation.[11]
By
Decision of July 4, 2000,[12]
the trial court found the market data
approach to be more realistic and consistent with law and jurisprudence on
the full and fair equivalent of the property.
Applying the average rate of P216,226 per hectare, it arrived at a
valuation of the 138.4018-hectare property at P29,926,000, to which it added P8,000,000
representing 50% of the value of trees, plants, and other improvements thereon,
bringing the total to P37,926,000. It disposed thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered to wit:
a) Fixing the Just Compensation of the entire 138.4018 hectares for acquisition covered by TCT No. T-22934 in the total amount of THIRTY SEVEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND (Php37,926,000.00) Pesos Philippine Currency, less the amount previously deposited in trust with the Land Bank which was already received by the plaintiffs.
b)
The Land Bank of the
c) Without pronouncement as to costs.
LBP filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, while the DAR filed a Notice of Appeal. By Order dated August 21, 2000, the trial
court denied the motion of LBP,[13]
prompting it to also file a Notice of Appeal.[14]
By consolidated Decision of December
15, 2005,[15] the Court
of Appeals sustained the trial court’s valuation of P29,926,000 as just
compensation.
The appellate court found
that, among other things, it would be specious to rely on the DAR’s computation
in ostensible compliance with its own issuances; that Commissioner Empleo
failed to consider available sales data of comparable properties in the
locality; and that the value of secondary crops should be excluded as the same
is inconclusive in view of conflicting evidence.
Petitioners and
respondents filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration which were
denied by the appellate court by Resolution of November 28, 2006.[16] Hence, petitioners LBP and DAR separately
sought recourse to this Court through the present Petitions for Review, which
were consolidated in the interest of uniformity of rulings on related cases.
In G.R. No. 175644, LBP
maintains that its valuation of the property at P13,449,579.08 was based
on the factors mentioned in RA 6657 and formula prescribed by the DAR; that its
determination should be given weight as it has the expertise to do the same;
and that the taking of private property for agrarian reform is not a
traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain as it also involves the exercise
of police power, hence, part of the loss is not compensable.[17]
In G.R. No. 175702, the
DAR avers that the valuation sustained by the appellate court was determined in
contravention of the criteria set by RA 6657 and relevant jurisprudence.[18]
Respondents, for their part, posit in their
consolidated Comment[19]
that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court,
are conclusive; and that the just compensation due them should be equivalent to
the market value of the property.
In determining the just compensation
due owners of lands taken for CARP coverage, the RTC, acting as a Special
Agrarian Court, should take into account the factors enumerated in Section 17
of RA 6657, as amended, to wit:
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 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. (Emphasis supplied)
The DAR, being the government agency
primarily charged with the implementation of the CARP, issued Administrative
Order No. 6, Series of 1992 (DAR AO 6-92), as amended by DAR Administrative
Order No. 11, Series of 1994 (DAR AO 11-94), translating the factors mentioned
in Section 17 of RA 6657 into a basic formula, presented as follows:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + ( CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
Where:
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration
The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present, relevant, and applicable.
A.1. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, the formula shall be:
A.2. When the CNI factor is not present, and CS and MV are applicable, the formula shall be:
A.3. When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is applicable, the formula shall be:
The threshold issue then is whether
the appellate court correctly upheld the valuation by the trial court of the
property on the basis of the market data
approach, in disregard of the formula prescribed by DAR AO 6-92, as
amended.
The petitions are partly meritorious.
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.
In LBP v. Banal,[23]
the Court ruled that the factors laid down in Section 17 of RA 6657 and the
formula stated in DAR AO 6-92, as amended, must be adhered to by the RTC in
fixing the valuation of lands subjected to agrarian reform:
In determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider several factors enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. 6657, as amended, thus:
x x x x
These factors have been translated into a basic formula in [DAO 6-92], as amended by [DAO 11-94], issued pursuant to the DAR's rule-making power to carry out the object and purposes of R.A. 6657, as amended.
x x x x
While the determination of just compensation involves the exercise of judicial discretion, however, such discretion must be discharged within the bounds of the law. Here, the RTC wantonly disregarded R.A. 6657, as amended, and its implementing rules and regulations. ([DAO 6-92], as amended by [DAO 11-94]).
x x x x
WHEREFORE, . . . The trial judge is directed to observe strictly the procedures specified above in determining the proper valuation of the subject property. (Underscoring supplied)
And in LBP v.
Celada,[24] the Court was emphatic that the RTC is not
at liberty to disregard the DAR valuation formula which filled in the details
of Section 17 of RA 6657, it being elementary that rules and regulations issued
by administrative bodies to interpret the law they are entrusted to enforce
have the force of law.
In
fixing the just compensation in the present case, the trial court, adopting the
market data approach on which
Commissioner Chua relied,[25] merely put premium on the location of the
property and the crops planted thereon which are not among the factors enumerated
in Section 17 of RA 6657. And the trial
court did not apply the formula provided in DAR AO 6-92, as amended. This is a clear departure from the settled
doctrine regarding the mandatory nature of Section 17 of RA 6657 and the DAR
issuances implementing it.
Not only did Commissioner Chua not consider
Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAR AO 6-92, as amended, in his appraisal of the property. His conclusion that the market data approach conformed with statutory and regulatory
requirements is bereft of basis.
Resolving in the negative the issue of
whether the RTC can resort to any other means of determining just compensation,
aside from Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAR AO 6-92, as amended, this Court, in LBP v. Lim,[26] held
that Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAR AO 6-92, as amended, are mandatory and not
mere guides that the RTC may disregard.
Petitioners maintain that the correct
valuation of the property is P13,449,579.08 as computed by Commissioner
Empleo.
The pertinent provisions of Item II
of DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94, read:
A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by [Voluntary Offer to Sell] or [Compulsory Acquisition] regardless of the date of offer or coverage of the claim:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
Where: LV = Land Value
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration
The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present,
relevant and applicable.
A.1. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, the formula shall be:
LV = (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)
x x x x
A.5 For purposes of this Administrative Order, the date of receipt of claimfolder by LBP from DAR shall mean the date when the claimfolder is determined by the LBP to be complete with all the required documents and valuation inputs duly verified and validated, and is ready for final computation/processing.
A.6 The basic formula in the grossing-up of valuation inputs such as . . . Market Value per Tax Declaration (MV) shall be:
Grossed-up = Valuation input x
Valuation Input Regional Consumer Price
Index (RCPI) Adjustment
Factor
The RCPI Adjustment Factor shall refer to the ratio of RCPI for the month issued by the National Statistics Office as of the date when the claimfolder (CF) was received by LBP from DAR for processing or, in its absence, the most recent available RCPI for the month issued prior to the date of receipt of CF from DAR and the RCPI for the month as of the date/effectivity/registration of the valuation input. Expressed in equation form:
RCPI
for the Month as of the
Date
of Receipt of Claimfolder
by LBP from DAR or the Most
recent RCPI for the Month
Issued
Prior to the Date of
RCPI Receipt of CF
Adjustment = ——————————————
Factor RCPI
for the Month Issued as of
the
Date/Effectivity/Registration
of
the Valuation Input
B. Capitalized Net Income (CNI) — This shall refer to the difference between the gross sales (AGP x SP) and total cost of operations (CO) capitalized at 12%.
Expressed in equation form:
CNI = (AGP x SP) - CO
—————————
.12
Where: CNI = Capitalized Net Income
AGP = Latest available 12-month's gross production immediately preceding the date of offer in case of VOS or date of notice of coverage in case of CA.
SP = The average of the latest available 12-month's selling prices prior to the date of receipt of the claimfolder by LBP for processing, such prices to be secured from the Department of Agriculture (DA) and other appropriate regulatory bodies or, in their absence, from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. If possible, SP data shall be gathered from the barangay or municipality where the property is located. In the absence thereof, SP may be secured within the province or region.
CO = Cost of Operations
Whenever the cost of operations could not be obtained or verified, an assumed net income rate (NIR) of 20% shall be used. Landholdings planted to coconut which are productive at the time of offer/coverage shall continue to use the 70% NIR. DAR and LBP shall continue to conduct joint industry studies to establish the applicable NIR for each crop covered under CARP.
.12 = Capitalization Rate
x x x x
D. In the
computation of Market Value per Tax Declaration (MV), the most recent Tax
Declaration (TD) and Schedule of Unit Market Value (SMV) issued prior to
receipt of claimfolder by LBP shall be considered. The Unit Market Value (UMV)
shall be grossed up from the date of its effectivity up to the date of receipt
of claimfolder by LBP from DAR for processing, in accordance with item
II.A.A.6. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
In thus
computing Capitalized Net Income (CNI), the Average Gross Production (AGP) of
the latest available 12 months immediately preceding the date of offer in case of
voluntary offer to sell or date of notice of coverage in
case of compulsory acquisition,
and the average Selling Price (SP) of the latest available 12 months prior to
the date of receipt of the claimfolder by
LBP for processing, should be used.
While these dates-bases of computation
are not clearly indicated in the records (as the mode of acquisition is in fact
disputed), the date of offer (assuming
the acquisition was by voluntary offer to sell) would have to be sometime in 1989, the alleged time of voluntary offer to sell; whereas the date of notice of coverage (assuming the acquisition was compulsory) would be
sometime prior to October 21, 1996, which is the date of the Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition, because
under DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1990,[27]
as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993, the notice of coverage precedes the Notice
of Land Valuation and Acquisition.
And the claimfolder would have been
received by LBP in or before 1997, the year the property was distributed to
agrarian reform beneficiaries,[28]
because land distribution is the last step in the procedure prescribed by the above-said
DAR administrative orders. Hence, the
data for the AGP should pertain to a period
in 1989 (in case of voluntary offer to sell) or prior to October, 1996 (in case of compulsory acquisition), while
the data for the SP should pertain to
1997 or earlier.
Commissioner Empleo, however, instead used
available data within the 12-month period prior to his ocular inspection in
October 1998 for the AGP,[29]
and the average selling price for the period January 1998 to December 1998 for
the SP,[30]
contrary to DAR AO 6-92, as amended.
Furthermore, the Regional Consumer
Price Index (RCPI) Adjustment Factor, which is used in computing the market
value of the property, is the ratio of the RCPI for the month when the
claimfolder was received by LBP, to the RCPI for the month of the registration
of the most recent Tax Declaration and Schedule of Unit Market Value[31]
issued prior to receipt of claimfolder by LBP.
Consistent with the previous discussion, the applicable RCPIs should therefore be dated 1997 or earlier.
Again, Commissioner Empleo instead used
RCPI data for January 1999 in computing the RCPI Adjustment Factor,[32]
contrary to DAR AO 6-92, as amended.
Parenthetically, Commissioner Empleo
testified[33] that
his computations were based on DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998.[34] This Administrative Order took effect only on
May 11, 1998, however, hence, the applicable valuation rules in this
case remain to be those prescribed by DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO
11-94.
But even if the 1998 valuation rules
were applied, the data for the AGP would still pertain to a period prior to October 1996, the revised
reference date being the date of the field investigation which precedes the
Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition; while the data for the SP and the
RCPIs would still pertain to 1997 or
earlier, there being no substantial revisions in their reference dates.
Finally, as reflected earlier,
Commissioner Empleo did not consider in his computation the secondary crops
planted on the property (coffee, pili, cashew, etc.), contrary to DAR AO 6-92,
as amended, which provides that the “[t]otal income shall be computed from the combination
of crops actually produced on the covered land whether seasonal or
permanent.”[35]
In fine, the valuation asserted by
petitioners does not lie.
While the Court is minded to write finis to this protracted litigation by itself
computing the just compensation due respondents, the evidence on record is not
sufficient for the purpose. The Court is
thus constrained to remand the case for determination of the valuation of the
property by the trial court, which is mandated to consider the factors provided
under Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, and as translated into the formula
prescribed in DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94.
The trial court may, motu proprio or at the instance of any
of the parties, again appoint one or more commissioners to ascertain facts
relevant to the dispute and file a written report thereof. The amount determined by the trial court
would then be the basis of interest income on the cash and bond deposits due
respondents from the time of the taking of the property up to the time of
actual payment of just compensation.[36]
WHEREFORE, the
challenged Decision of the Court of
Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil
Case No. 98-6438 is REMANDED to Branch 52 of the Sorsogon RTC which is
directed to determine with dispatch the just compensation due respondents
strictly in accordance with the procedures specified above.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A.
ABAD Associate Justice |
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Additional member per Special Order No. 691.
** Per Special Order No. 690 in lieu of the sabbatical leave of Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing.
*** Additional member per Special Order No, 711.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with the concurrence of then Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, now a retired member of this Court, Ruben T. Reyes and Associate Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman; CA rollo, pp. 204-218.
[2] Records, pp. 5-9.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] TSN of
[10] Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “D,” pp. 11-24.
[11] TSN of
[12] Records, pp. 108-116.
[13]
[14]
[15] Supra note 1.
[16] CA rollo, pp. 274-276.
[17] Rollo (G.R. No. 175644), pp. 26-40.
[18] Rollo (G.R. No. 175702), pp. 19-21.
[19]
[20] G.R. No. 143276,
[21] G.R. No.
164876,
[22] G.R. No. 171941,
[23] Supra note 20 at 549-554.
[24] Supra note 21 at 507.
[25] Records, pp. 111-115.
[26] Supra note 22 at 134-136.
[27] Revised
Rules Governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary
Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to R.A. No. 6657.
[28] TSN of
[29] Records, p. 69; TSN of
[30] TSN of
[31] The Tax Declaration and Schedule of Unit Market Value being the relevant valuation inputs with respect to market value.
[32] Records, p. 66.
[33] TSN of
[34] Which superseded DAR A.O. No. 6-92, as amended by DAR A.O. No. 11-94.
[35] Item II B.5.
[36] Vide LBP v. Lim, supra note 22 at 142.