Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, - versus - HEIRS OF JUAN LOPEZ,
namely: MONSERRAT LOPEZ-MARCHAN, LYDIA LOPEZ-DAMASCO, THELMA LOPEZ-GERONA,
ELSA FELY LOPEZ-REBUSTILLO, JOSE LOPEZ, and HERMINIO LOPEZ, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 171038
Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: June 20,
2012 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BRION, J.:
Before us is a petition for review
on certiorari[1]
filed by the petitioner, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP),
assailing the September 29, 2005 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in C.A. G.R. SP No. 80918.[2]
The LBP also assails the December 23,
2005 resolution[3] of
the CA denying its motion for reconsideration.[4]
The CA dismissed the LBPs appeal for lack of merit.
The
respondent heirs of the deceased Juan Lopez owned a parcel of coconut land
situated in San Vicente, Castilla, Sorsogon, with an area of 23.1301 hectares
and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-32. In July 2000, Monserrat
L. Marchan, together and in behalf of her co-respondents,[5]
voluntarily offered to sell the parcel of land to the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) under Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
After
conducting a field investigation, only 21.6101 out of the 23.1301 hectares was
found subject for acquisition.[6]
The LBP valued the property at P14,101.51 per hectare or for a total amount of P304,735.09.[7]
The LBPs offer was reduced to P298,101.21,[8]
after the value of the 0.3643 hectare legal easement on the property was
deducted.
The
LBP moved to reconsider the PARADs ruling, but its motion was denied in an
order dated March 21, 2002.[12]
Hence, on April 1,
2002, the LBP filed before Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court, acting as a
Special Agrarian Court (RTC-SAC), of Sorsogon City a petition for the
judicial determination of just compensation, docketed as Civil Case No.
2002-6986.[13]
In its petition, the LBP contended
that the PARAD gravely abused his discretion in valuing the respondents property
at P928,330.17.
It mainly argued that the average selling price of P16.00 per kg. of copra used
by the PARAD is contrary to DAR regulations; that under DAR Administrative
Order (A.O.) No. 5, series of 1998,
the selling price is defined as [t]he average of the latest available
12-months selling prices prior to the date of receipt of the [claim folder] by
LBP for processing, such prices to be secured from the Department of
Agriculture x x x and other appropriate regulatory bodies or, in their absence,
from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. Thus, the selling price to be
applied in this case should be the average price of copra for the 12-month
period prior to the LBPs receipt of the respondents claim folder in July
2001;[14]
and that based on the pricing schedule supplied by the Philippine Coconut
Authority (PCA), the average selling price within the months of July
2000 and June 2001 was P5.86 per kg.[15]
In a decision dated August 15,
2003,[16]
the RTC-SAC affirmed the PARADs decision. From the evidence presented, it
considered the PARADs valuation to be fair, just and realistic, based not only
on the propertys yield of copra, but also on its condition, its proximity to
roads and the market place, the comparable sales in the area or the current
value of like properties, the improvements thereto, its actual use, the social
and economic benefits that the property contributed to the community, the
landowners sworn valuation thereof, and the tax declarations and assessments
made by government assessors on the property.[17]
Thereafter, the
RTC-SAC denied the LBPs motion for reconsideration in an order dated October
27, 2003.[18]
The LBP appealed to the CA.
In a
decision dated September 29, 2005,[19]
the CA affirmed the RTC-SACs ruling. It was unconvinced with the LBPs
unsubstantiated claims that the RTC-SAC erred in considering then prevailing
circumstances in the valuation of the respondents property and not those at
the time the property was taken by the government, and in adopting the PARADs
valuation, because it was not arrived at strictly in accordance with the
formula and guidelines provided by the DAR.
On the
contrary, the CA observed that while the LBP and the PARAD arrived at different
valuations of the respondents property, both of them used the same formula
provided under DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998.[20]
The CA affirmed the valuation adopted by the RTC-SAC as there was nothing to
show that the trial court, as well as the PARAD, failed to consider the factors
enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and the guidelines provided by DAR
A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, in arriving at its valuation.
As for the
LBPs valuation, the CA found it to be unrealistic and far from being the
just compensation envisioned by the Constitution.[21]
The
LBP moved to reconsider the CAs decision, but its motion was denied in a
resolution dated December 23, 2005.[22]
The Petition
In
the present petition for review on certiorari, the LBP insists that the
PCA-supplied average selling price data of P5.86 per kg. of copra should have
been used in computing the just compensation for the respondents property, as
their data and computation were in accordance with the formula and guidelines
provided under DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998.
We
DENY the present petition.
In the
determination of just compensation, the RTC-SACs are guided by the factors
enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, which provision states:
Section 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.
The DAR, as
the administrative agency tasked with the implementation of the agrarian reform
program and pursuant to its rule-making power under R.A. No. 6657, translated
the factors in Section 17 into a basic formula in DAR A.O. No. 6, series of
1992, [23]
and those found in succeeding DAR administrative regulations. In various cases,
we emphasized the mandatory application of these formulas and imposed upon the
RTC-SACs the duty to apply, and not to disregard, them in determining just
compensation.[24]
Questions
of fact not reviewable
We find the present issue to be a question of fact that is
not reviewable by this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Section 1 thereof provides
that [t]he petition x x x shall raise only questions of law, which must be
distinctly set forth. To differentiate, a question of fact exists when the
doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts while a
question of law exists if the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set
of facts;[26]
there is a question of fact if the issue requires a review of the evidence
presented or requires the re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, and
there is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved
without the need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence.[27]
The issue of the correctness of the average selling price data used in this case
is clearly a question of fact that can only be determined by a review of the
evidence presented by the parties.
In the absence of proof to show that
the RTC-SAC acted arbitrarily in the appreciation and weighing of the evidence,
we respect the RTC-SACs findings. Factual findings and determinations made by
the RTC, or in this case the RTC-SAC, are generally binding on the Court,
particularly when affirmed by the CA.[28]
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the present petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED.
We AFFIRM the September 29, 2005 decision and the December 23, 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 80918.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
JOSE Associate
Justice |
MARIA Associate
Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate
Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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 Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Senior
Associate Justice
(Per
Section 12, R.A. 296,
The
Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 25-50.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, and concurred in by Associate Justices Danilo B. Pine and Vicente S. E. Veloso; id. at 10-20.
[3] Id. at 8-9.
[4] Id. at 8-9.
[5] Lydia Lopez-Damasco, Thelma Lopez-Gerona, Elsa Fely Lopez-Rebustillo, Jose Lopez, and Herminio Lopez.
[6] Rollo, pp. 102-105.
[7] Id. at 106-109.
[8] Id. at 142-143.
[9] Id. at 154-156.
[10] CNI = (Average Gross Production x Selling
Price) Cost of Operations
.12
[11] LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1))
[12] Rollo, p. 158.
[13] Id. at 147-150.
[14] Id. at 106.
[15] Id. at 110.
[16] Id. at 134-139.
[17] Id. at 137.
[18] Id. at 140.
[19] Supra note 2.
[20] There shall be one basic formula for
the valuation of lands covered by VOS or CA:
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.
A1. 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)
A2. When the CNI factor is not
present, and CS and MV are applicable, the formula shall be:
LV = (CS x 0.9)
+ (MV x 0.1)
A3. When both the CS and CNI are
not present and only MV is applicable, the formula shall be:
LV = MV x 2
In no case shall the value of idle land using the
formula MV x 2 exceed the lowest value of land within the same estate under
consideration or within the same barangay or municipality (in that
order) approved by LBP within one (1) year from receipt of claimfolder.
x x x x
CNI = (AGP x SP) - CO
.12
x x x x
AGP = Average Gross Production corresponding to the latest available 12 months' gross production immediately preceding the date of FI [field investigation].
SP [Selling Price] = The average of the latest available 12-months selling prices prior to the date of receipt of the [claim folder] 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 for 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 FI shall continue to use the assumed NIR of 70%. DAR
and LBP shall continue to conduct joint industry studies to establish the
applicable NIR for each crop covered under CARP.
0.12 = Capitalization Rate[.]
[21] Rollo, p. 16.
[22] Id. at 8-9.
[23] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Sps. Banal, 478 Phil. 701, 710 (2004).
[24] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido, G.R. No. 183688, August 18, 2010, 628 SCRA 454; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz, G.R. No. 175175, September 29, 2008, 567 SCRA 31; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim, G.R. No. 171941, August 2, 2007, 529 SCRA 129; and Landbank of the Philippines v. Celada, 515 Phil. 467 (2006).
[25] Rollo, p. 17.
[26] Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp, Inc., 481 Phil. 550, 561 (2004).
[27] Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank, G.R. No. 171982, August 18, 2010, 628 SCRA 404, 411.
[28] National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 479 Phil. 850, 865 (2004).