GROUP 4 – CAMARAO, SIBAYAN, TAULE

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LINA B. NAVARRO

GR. 196264

FACTS: Petition for certiorari on RTC (acting as Special Agrarian Court) and CA decison which
granted just compensation to Lina at P10.00 with 12% interest for 5.4501 ha of land determined.
LBP countered stating that the rule should be the rule under PD 27 and factors in Sec. 17 of RA
6651, as translated into a basic formula by DAR in determining of just compensation.

Lina is the daughter of Antonio and stepdaughter of Jovita who owned a lot in Guianga Cadastre,
Catalunan Grande, Davao City. It is an agricultural land with 29.0772 ha. When Antonio died,
Jovita was appointed as administrator, partitioned the land between her (75%) and Lina (25%).

In 1988, under the land transfer program PD 27, 21.890 ha. of Lina and Jovita’s land was
expropriated. DAR valued it at P49,025.15 according to LTPA-FU between Jovita and
beneficiaries. LBP concurred with the valuation and out of the P49,025.15, Jovita was paid
P36,768.86. Lina on the other hand rejected the tender of P12,256.29 for her share.

Lina questioned valuation at P0.17 per sq. m. as ridiculously low which is confiscatory, unrealistic,
and violative of her rights to just compensation and due process. The parties submitted a Stipulation
of Facts wherein they found that the share of Lina is 5.4725 ha. (25% of 21.890 ha.)

SAC favored Lina and computed share to be 58,675.50 sq. m. which should be valued at P10.00
per sq. m. using the market value approach. Lina filed a motion for reconsideration stating that
it should be P20.00 as of 1988 but was denied. On appeal Lina filed before the CA a motion for
execution pending SAC Decision because of old age and sickness and the fact that 14 years had
elapsed since the taking of her property. LBP complied but stated that they can only effect payment
on the 3.8249 ha at P10.00. because only such rightly belong to her. Hence, they delivered a
Manager's Check dated January 12, 2007 in the amount of P1,235,578.93 as compliance for the
writ of execution. Lina claimed there was a typographical error because she must be compensated
for the 5.4501 ha. LBP insisted it is only 15.2999 ha. because the payment for 6.5006 ha. was
directly paid by the tenants to Jovita and such must recovered by Lina from Jovita, not from LBP.
CA affirmed SAC decision with modification of total area to 5.4501 ha. and directed LBP to pay
remaining 1.7 ha. at P10.00 per sq.m. plus 12% per annum interest computed from June 13, 1988.

ISSUES: WON the CA erred in holding that Lina's compensable share in the property is 5.4725
ha.; just compensation fixed by the SAC and CA is correct; CA erred in imposition of 12% interest.

RULING: As to compensable land area SC concur with the CA. Stipulation of Facts may not be
binding if there is palpable mistake. In the present case, a "palpable mistake" was made either in
referring wrong BIR record or VAT Registration Certificate and in computation of the total area.
Further, Lina is a co-owner who has an absolute ownership of his/her undivided and pro-
indiviso share in the co-owned property who has the right to alienate, assign and mortgage it. Also,
questions on appeal are allowed because there is plain error; jurisprudential developments; and
issues raised are a matter of public policy. The DAR translated the valuation factors in Sec. 17:
LV = (CM x 0.6) + (CS x 0.30) + (MV x 0.10)

Where: LV = Land Value

CNI = Capitalized Net Income (based on land use and productivity)
CS = Comparable Sales (based on fair market value equivalent to 70% of BIR zonal value)
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration (based on Government assessment)

SC reject the just compensation of SAC and CA because they must follow Sec. 17 RA
6651. Hence, remand case to SAC for the fixing of the same. Lina must also be awarded legal
interest at 12% / annum from June 13, 1988 to June 30, 2013; July 1, 2013 until full payment at
6% / annum under BSP-MBC 799. Property was taken without payment and even offer of payment
was delayed. If property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court,
the final compensation must include interests computed from the time the property is taken to
the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court.