Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Supreme Court
Decisions which
impact CARP
Implementation
Right of Retention
DELFINO, ET. AL. -versus- ANASAO AND ANASAO (G.R. No. 197586, September 10, 2014)
Settled is the rule that when the agrarian reform process is still incomplete, such as in this case where
the just compensation due the landowner has yet to be settled, just compensation should be
determined and the process be concluded under RA 6657.
The evidence must conform to Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, prior to its amendment by RA
9700. It bears pointing out that while Congress passed RA 9700 on July 1, 2009, amending certain
provisions of RA 6657, and declaring [t]hat all previously acquired lands wherein valuation is subject
to challenge by landowners shall be completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of [RA
6657], as amended, the law should not be retroactively applied to pending claims/cases.
RTC is advised that while it should be mindful of the different formulae created by the DAR in arriving
at just compensation, it is not strictly bound to adhere thereto if the situations before it do not warrant
their application. The following is cited from LBP vs Puyat (G.R. No. 175055 June 27, 2012)
The determination of just compensation is a judicial function; hence, courts cannot be unduly
restricted in their determination thereof. To do so would deprive the courts of their judicial prerogatives
and reduce them to the bureaucratic function of inputting data and arriving at the valuation. While the
courts should be mindful of the different formulae created by the DAR in arriving at just compensation,
they are not strictly bound to adhere thereto if the situations before them do not warrant it.
Just Compensation
THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES DOMINGO TRIA and CONSORCIA CAMANO TRIA,Petitioners,
-versus- LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
(G.R. No. 170245, July 1, 2013)
In the more recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat and Gloria Puyat,
the Court again adhered to the ruling laid down in the abovementioned case. Here, the Court ruled
that when the government takes property pursuant to PD No. 27, but does not pay the landowner
his just compensation until after RA No. 6657 has taken effect in 1998, it becomes more equitable
to determine just compensation using RA No. 6657 and not EO No. 228. Hence, the valuation of the
GSP of palay should be based on its value at the time it was ordered paid by the SAC.
Considering that the present case involves a similar factual milieu as the aforementioned cases, the
Court deems it more equitable to determine just compensation due the petitioners using values
pursuant to the standard laid down in Section 17 of RA No. 6657.
Also worth emphasizing is the observation made by the RTC portion of Executive Order No. 228 is
unfair and unjust (The fact that the landowner was not paid in 1972 and he has been deprived of
his 25% share in the net harvest since 1972, until now.)
Needless to say, petitioners have been deprived of the use and dominion over their landholdings for
a substantial period of time, while respondents abjectly failed to pay the just compensation due the
petitioners.
Just Compensation
SPOUSES JOSE M. ESTACION, JR. and ANGELINA T. ESTACION, -versus-THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
DAR, REGION 7, PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, DAR, GUIHULNGAN, NEGROS
ORIENTAL, PRESIDENT, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, DUMAGUETE BRANCH (G.R. No. 163361, March 12, 2014)
The determination of just compensation is essentially a
judicial function, which is vested in the RTC acting as
SAC. It cannot be lodged with administrative agencies
such as the DAR. The Court has already settled the rule
that the SAC is not an appellate reviewer of the DAR
decision in administrative cases involving
Laches
CODERIA -versus- ESTATE OF JUAN CIDOCO (G.R. 180476, JUNE 26, 2013)