G.R. No. 175175 Case Digest

G.R. No. 175175, September 29, 2008

Landbank of the Philippines

vs Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz

Ponente: Tinga

Facts:

Respondents are registered owners of an unirrigated riceland situated in Cagayan, which was placed by the government under the coverage of the operation land transfer under PD 27. LBP pegged the value of the land but was rejected the valuation.

Because of such rejection, SAC held that the value of the land different from that of the valuation made by the LBP, following the valuation made by the PARAD. On petition, the CA ruled that the area covered by the agrarian reform program was duly established before PARAD, however, CA affirmed the land valuation made by the SAC. Hence, this instant petition.

Issue:

Whether the SAC has the jurisdiction to determine the valuation of the land.

Ruling:

Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 states:

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 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.

A perusal of the PARADs Decision dated 23 November 1999, which mandated payment of just compensation in the amount of P80,000.00 per hectare, reveals that the PARAD did not adhere to the formula prescribed in any of the aforementioned regulations issued by the DAR or was at least silent on the applicability of the aforementioned DAR regulations to the question of just compensation. The PARAD decision also did not refer to any evidence in support of its finding.

The SAC, meanwhile, referred to DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 1992, as amended, as the controlling guideline in fixing just compensation. Pertinently, to obtain the land value, the formula under said regulation requires that the values for the Capitalized Net Income, Comparable Sales and Market Value based on the tax declaration must be shown. Moreover, said formula has been superseded by DAR A.O. No. 05, series of 1998, which also requires values for Capitalized Net Income, Comparable Sales and Market Value, the same parameters laid down in the prior regulation.

Stating that no evidence was presented by respondents on the aforementioned parameters, the SAC ruled that it was constrained to adopt the finding of the PARAD, which fixed the value of the land at P80,000.00 per hectare. On appeal, the CA adopted the same finding. The general rule is that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on the Court. However, the rule admits of exceptions, as when the factual findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures or when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based.

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 any evidentiary or 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 A.O. No. 5, series of 1998.

Decision of CA was reversed and set aside, the case was remanded to RTC to determine the just compensation.