CASTROVERDE, KRIZEL MARY B.

LAW II-A
JULIAN S. LEBRUDO and REYNALDO L. LEBRUDO v. REMEDIOS LOYOLA
G.R. No. 181370, March 9, 2011
J. Carpio
FACTS
Respondent owns a 240-square meter parcel of land located at Carmona, Cavite awarded
by the DAR under R.A. No. 6657 (CARP) which is covered by Certificate of Land Ownership
(CLOA) and duly registered under TCT. Herein petitioner Julian Lebrudo substituted by his
son Reynaldo, filed with the PARAD of Cavite, an action for the cancellation of said Title and
the issuance of another for half of the lot involved which was dismissed on the ground of
prematurity. Petitioner then re-filed for the same action with the following allegations: That
herein respondent asked for petitioners assistance in redeeming the mortgaged lot and to
shoulder the expenses needed for the issuance of Title to Loyola which was fulfilled by the
petitioner. In exchange for his assistance, respondent promised to give half of the said lot to
petitioner by executing three sinumpang salaysay waiving her right to half of the lot in
favour of petitioner. Respondent then refused to comply with her promise when petitioner
asked for his portion of the lot involved which then resulted to the petitioner asking for the
assistance of the Sangguniang Barangay of Carmona, Cavite, the PNP, and DAR to mediate
and solve the dispute. Despite efforts to solve the difference the parties failed to reach an
amicable settlement. Respondent alleged facts contrary to the information provided by
petitioner in her answer and denied ever promising to give half of the lot to Lebrudo. The
PARAD then decided the case in favour of the petitioner. Respondent then appealed to the
DARAB which was granted reversing the decision of PARAD. Petitioner then filed a motion for
reconsideration which the DARAB denied in a resolution. Petitioner then filed a petition with
the CA which affirmed the decision of DARAB in denying his petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not Lebrudo is entitled to half of the lot covered by RA 6657.
RULING
No. A Certificate of Land Ownership is a document evidencing ownership of the land
granted of awarded to the beneficiary by DAR, and contains the restrictions and conditions
provided for in RA 6657 and other applicable laws particularly Sec. 27 which provides for the
transferability of awarded lands prohibiting any land acquired under said law to be
transferred, sold, or conveyed to third persons except through hereditary succession, the
government, LBP, or other qualified beneficiaries. Petitioners action is without merit. The
law expressly prohibits any sale, transfer or conveyance by farmer-beneficiaries of their land
reform rights within 10 years form the grant by the DAR. Furthermore the certificate of title
obtained by herein respondent serves as evidence of an indefeasible title and it becomes
incontrovertible after a year. The executed Sinumpaang Salaysays are likewise void ab initio
for it was the intention of the petitioner to violate the conditions imposed by the Agrarian
Law. Therefore the Petition is DENIED, the SC AFFIRMED the decision and resolution of the
CA.

CASTROVERDE, KRIZEL MARY B. LAW II-A

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION
G.R. No. 166259, November 12, 2012
J. Brion
FACTS
Respondent was the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land with an area of
29.0966 hectares situated in Caintagan, Masbate. Respondent voluntarily offered its land to
the DAR through a letter for coverage under R.A. 6657 (CARL) for 581, 932.00 or at
20,000.00 per hectare. The LBP then fixed the value of the land and sent a notice of
valuation to the respondent. Respondent rejected said valuation and filed a petition with the
DARAB for a summary administrative determination of just compensation contesting their
suggested compensation value based on its location and productivity. While the DARAB
proceedings was still pending, HFC file a complaint involving the same issue with the RTC
with the addition of attorneys fees of 10% of the just compensation. HFC alleged that there
was unreasonable delay or official inaction on the part of DARAB which should have decided
the case within 30 days after it was submitted for submission. LBP then countered HFCs
petition alleging that the petition of herein respondent lacked a cause of action for failure to
exhaust all administrative remedies. DARAB then issued a decision affirming LBPs
valuation. RTC then rendered a judgement in favour of HFC granting their petition. Owing to
the parties conflicting valuations, the SAC made its own valuation concluding that the
compensation should be 32, 000.00 per hectare or 882,787.20 for the area of 27.58571
hectares plus consequential damages at the same value per hectare of the respondents
property left and rendered useless by the compulsory coverage. Both parties then appealed
to the CA. HFC questioned the decision of the RTC regarding the just compensation while the
LBP questioned the jurisdiction of the SAC emphasizing that the completion of the
administrative proceedings before the DARAB is a condition precedent for the filing of a
complaint for the determination of just compensation before the SAC. The CA reversed the
decision of RTC and dismissed HFCs complaint for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies and ruled that the LBP made a procedural shortcut when it filed the complaint with
the SAC without waiting for the DARABs decision. The CA also deleted the award of
attorneys fees for lack of factual and legal basis. LBP then file a review on certiorari
questioning the decision of the Appellate Court.
ISSUES
(1)
(2)
(3)

Whether or not the SAC has jurisdiction over the case.

Whether or not there was forum shopping on the part of the respondent HFC.
Whether or not the strict adherence to the formula prescribed by the DAR unduly ties
the hands of the SAC in
the determination of just compensation.
RULING
The SAC properly acquired jurisdiction over HFCs complaint for the determination of just
compensation despite the pendency of the DARAB proceedings. The DARAB does not
exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the SAC in just compensation cases. The determination
is judicial in nature. The taking of property under R.A. 6657 is an exercise of the states
power of eminent domain. The valuation of property for determination of just compensation
in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the
courts and not with the administrative agencies. Specifically when the parties cannot agree
on the amount of just compensation, only the exercise of judicial power can settle the
dispute with binding effect on the winning and losing parties. HFC is not guilty of forum
shopping. In the present case, HFC did not commit the same for the third element of litits
pendentia is lacking which is the identity with respect to the two cases, such that any
judgement may be rendered in the pending case. The DARABs land valuation is only
preliminary and is not final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party.
The present case must be remanded to the court of origin for the determination of just
compensation in accordance with SEC. 17 of RA 6657 and applicable DAR regulations for the
court based its valuation upon a different formula and did not conduct any hearing for the

reception of evidence. The Petition is GRANTED. The assailed amended decision of the CA is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The special civil case is remanded to the RTC of Masbate.

CASTROVERDE, KRIZEL MARY B. LAW II-A

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPOUSES ROSA and PEDRO COSTO
G.R. No. 174647, December 5, 2012
J. Peralta
FACTS
Respondents are the registered owners of a parcel of land located at Catamlangan, Pilar
Sorsogon covered by Original Certificate of Title. Respondents offered said property to the
DAR under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Out of the total area, 7.3471
hectares was deemed qualified for acquisition. Petitioner-Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
then computed the compensation value for said portion in the amount of 104,077.01 pesos.
Respondents rejected said valuation and compelled the LBP to deposit the offer in the form
of cash and bonds in favor of respondents as provisional compensation for the acquired
property. The latter then sought the determination of just compensation with the Provincial
Adjudication board of DAR. PARAD then rendered a decision in favour of respondents and
recomputed and fixed the value of the property. LBP then filed a motion for reconsideration
which was denied. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for determination of just
compensation with the RTC as the SAC which rendered its decision in favor of respondents,
it being the more realistic appraisal of the subject property. LBP then sought recourse befor
the CA which affirmed the decision of SAC.
ISSUE
Whether or not the courts involved erred in fixing the just compensation for the property
involved.
RULING
The SAC and RTC did err in fixing the just compensation. The determination of just
compensation is the exclusive domain of the courts and that the executive and legislative
acts of fixing just compensation are not conclusive or binding upon the court, but should
only be regarded as an initial valuation. Section 17 of RA 6657 defined the parameters of
determination of the just compensation. The RTC is required to consider the following
factors: (1) the acquisition cost of the land; (2) the current value of the properties; (3) its
nature and actual use, and income; (4) the sworn valuation of the owner; (5) the tax
declarations; (6) the assessment made by the government assessors; (7) the social and
economic benefits contributed by the farmers and farmworkers, and by the government to
the property; and (8) the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government
financing institution on the said land, if any. All the above mentioned factors in arriving at
the proper valuation of the subject property were considered in the case at bar. Verily,
factual findings of administrative officials and agencies that have acquired expertise of their
primary jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect but, at times, even finality if
such findings are supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, the court has
consistently ruled that the ascertainment of just compensation by the RTC and SAC on the
basis of the landholdings nature, location, market value, and the volume and value of the
produce is valid. Finally, the matters raised by petitioner mainly involve factual
controversies, which are clearly beyond the ambit of this court. WHEREFORE, the petition is
DENIED the resolution of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

CASTROVERDE, KRIZEL MARY B. LAW II-A

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENRIQUE LIVIOCO
G.R. No. 170685, September 22, 2010
J. Del Castillo,
FACTS
Respondent Enrique Livioco was the owner of 30.6329 hectares of sugarland located in
Mabalacat, Pampanga. He then offered the same to the DAR for acquisition under the CARP
at thirty pesos per square meter, for a total of 9,189,870.00. The Voluntary-offer-to-sell
(VOS) form indicated that his property is adjacent to residential subdivisions and to an
international paper mill. Said offer was then referred to LBP for valuation which set the price
at 3.21 pesos per square meter or a total of 827,943.48 pesos for 26 hectares. Respondent
was given notice but did not act upon it. The LBP then issued a certification to the Register
of Deeds of Pampanga that it has earmarked the aforementioned amount as compensation
for the land in question. Two years later, respondent requested for a re-evaluation of the
compensation on the ground that its value had already appreciated from the time it was first
offered for sale which was denied by the Regional Director on the ground perfected sale.
The DAR then proceeded to take possession of Liviocos property and awarded Certificates
of Land Ownership to 26 qualified farmer-beneficiaries. Respondent filed separate
complaints to cancel said certificates and to recover his property. He likewise filed for
quieting of title, recovery of possession and damages against the DAR, LBP, Register of
Deeds, and the farmer-beneficiaries. The CA sustained the validity of the CLOAs and
declared it final and executor. Respondent then filed a petition for reconveyance before the
DAR Regional Office which eventually reached the CA which dismissed the same on the
ground of the decided validity of the compulsory acquisition. The LBP upon request of the
DAR reduced the acquired portion of the property and notified Livioco. The latter finally filed
a petition for judicial determination of just compensation before the RTC. Respondent
likewise presented evidence to prove the value of his property and alleged the increase in
said propertys value. The RTC ordered for the submission of additional evidence to support
their allegations which both parties failed to comply. As a result, the RTC decided the case in
favor of respondent. The LBP sought for reconsideration but to no avail. LBP was then
ordered by the court upon motion of respondent to release an initial cash down payment.
Petitioner in turn sought for reconsideration of said order. The CA affirmed the trial courts
decision in toto.
ISSUE
Whether or not the just compensation was determined in accordance with law
RULING
The factual findings of the trial courts are entitled to respect. The factors for determining
just compensation set out in Sec. 17 of RA 6657 were all considered by the trial court in
arriving at its decision. For purposes of just compensation, the fair market value of and
expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking. As
to the character of property, both courts erred in treating the land as residential and
accepting the change in the character of the property, without any proof that authorized
land conversion had taken place. The propertys character refers to its actual use at the
time of taking not its potential uses. Hence, the CA and the trial court had no legal basis for
considering the subject propertys value as residential. The trial and appellate court likewise
erred in its decision related to the price of the property involved. As manifested in the trial

courts decision, it recognizes that the evidences presented by the parties were insufficient
to arrive at the just compensation and that the necessary evidence were unavailable for its
consideration. Despite the lack of evidence, the court still proceeded with the case and
decided it in favour of the respondent based on a mere preponderance of evidence even if it
was not relevant. The LBPs valuation is likewise erroneous. It is not enough that the
landowner fails to prove a higher valuation for the property; LBP must still prove the
correctness of its claims. In the absence of such substantiation, the case may have to be
remanded for the reception of evidence. LBP merely submitted its computation to the court
without any evidence on record whether documentary or testimonial that would support the
correctness of the values of data used in such computation. In light of the lack of evidence
needed to pursue the case, the court decided to remand the case to its court of origin. The
petition was DENIED in so far as it sought to have the LBPs valuation of the subject
property sustained. The assailed decisions of the CA and its resolution were reversed and
set aside for lack of factual and legal basis. The Civil case was remanded to the RTC of
Angeles City for reception of evidence on the issue of compensation and said court was
directed to determine the just compensation in accordance with the guidelines; and was
further directed to conclude the proceedings and to submit to the SC a report of its findings
and recommended conclusions within 60 days from notice of the decision.
CASTROVERDE, KRIZEL MARY B. LAW II-A
ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
G.R. No. 93100, June 19, 1997
J. Romero,
FACTS
Petitioners are engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms.
They assailed Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of RA 6657, as well as the
implementing guidelines and procedures contained in AOs 8 and 10 series of 1988 issue by
public respondent secretary of the DAR as unconstitutional. Petitioners claimed that the
questioned provisions of CARL violate the constitution in that the provisions in question
under CARL extend agrarian reform to aquaculture lands even as the Constitution limits said
law to agricultural lands; that said provisions treat aquaculture and agriculture lands
similarly when they are differently situated and differently treat the same when they are
similarly situated in violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution; that said
provisions distort employment benefits and burdens in favour of aquaculture employees;
that questioned provisions deprive petitioner of its government-induced investments in
aquaculture as opposed to the constitutional mandate that the state respect the freedom of
enterprise to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and growth.
ISSUE
Whether or not the above-mentioned provisions insofar as they include in its coverage lands
devoted to the aquaculture industry is unconstitutional.
RULING
The court has already ruled impliedly that lands devoted to fishing are not agricultural
lands. In said undertaking, the use of land is only incidental to and not the principal factor in
productivity and hence, is excluded from RA 6657. While the court will not hesitate to
declare a law or an act void when confronted squarely with constitutional issues, neither will
it pre-empt the Legislative and the Executive branches of the government in correcting or
clarifying by means of amendment, said law or act. It is clearly stated in Section 10Exemptions and Exclusions of RA 6657 that Private lands actually, directly, and exclusively
used for prawn farms and fishponds have not been distributed and CLOA issued to agrarian
reform beneficiaries under the CARP. furthermore, under the same law, the provision states
that the foregoing provision shall not apply to agricultural lands subsequently converted to
fishponds or prawn farms provided the size of the land converted does not exceed the
retention limit of the landowner. Wherefore the petition is DISMISSED for the question of
constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot and academic with the
passage of RA 7881.

CASTROVERDE, KRIZEL MARY B. LAW II-A

NATALIA REALTY et al. vs. DAR
G.R. No. 103302, August 12, 1993
J. Bellosillo,
FACTS
Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside several hectares of land in Antipolo and
Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis. Estate
Developers and Investors Corporation (EDIC), the developer of Petitioner was granted
approval to develop said land into low-cost housing subdivision. Natalia properties then
became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Upon the promulgation of CARL, the DAR issued a
Notice of Coverage on the underdeveloped portion of said subdivision which was
immediately objected by Natalia Realty which then requested the DAR Secretary to cancel
said order. The members of the Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok Antipolo then filed a
complaint with the DAR asking to restrain herein petitioner from developing the lands they
cultivate. The DAR then issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Petitioner and EDIC appealed
to the DARAB. The latter remanded the case to the RA. Petitioner then requested the DAR
Secretary to set aside the notice of coverage which was ignored by the latter as well as the
DAR director.
ISSUES
(1) Whether or not the lands in question are covered by the CARL.
(2) Whether or not said properties were validly converted from agricultural lands to
residential lands.
RULING
The underdeveloped portions of the Subdivision involved cannot be considered as
agricultural lands for said lots were intended for residential use. They ceased to be
agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation.
Natalia Realty and EDIC complied with the requirements of law. Said properties were within
the areas set aside for the reservation for the purpose of providing additional housing to the
population of Metro Manila. Public respondents gravely abused their discretion in issuing
assailed Notice of Coverage over lands which they no longer have jurisdiction. The court
granted the Petition for Certiorari and Set Aside the Notice of Coverage.

CASTROVERDE, KRIZEL MARY B. LAW II-A

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MONTINOLA-ESCARILLA and CO., INC.
G.R. No. 178046, June 13, 2012
J. Perlas-Bernabe,
FACTS
Respondent Montinola-Escarilla and Co., Inc. (MECO) is the owner of a parcel of
agricultural land in Agusan del Sur covered by the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) out of
which 159.0881 hectares were acquired by the government in 1995 under RA 6657. LBP
valued the land but was rejected by respondent. LBP then file a summary proceeding for the
determination of just compensation before the RARAD. MECO then file a complaint for the
same with the RTC to evaluate and appraise the just compensation for the subject property.
The RARAD rendered a decision fixing the compensation at 823,204.08 pesos. The Board of
Commissioners was unable to come up with a unified valuation. While the RTC gave more
credence to the Appraisal Report submitted by Asian, it did not adopt its valuation and
instead fixed lower values but higher than those recommended by the Board of
Commissioners. Petitioner and the DAR Secretary then filed separate motions for
reconsideration which were both denied in the Order. LBP appealed with the CA which set
aside the RTCs valuation for failure to give due consideration to the factors enumerated in
Sec 17 of RA 6657. The CA then adopted the commissioners report submitted by the two
commissioners as the only unbiased determination of just compensation.
ISSUE
Whether or not the CA erred in adopting the valuation for just compensation.
RULING
For purposes of determining just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated
property is determined by its character and price at the time of taking. The potential use of
the expropriated property is only considered in cases where there is a great improvement in
the general vicinity of the expropriated property, but should never control the determination
of just compensation. The RTC and the CA ignored the fact that at the time of the ocular
survey, a substantial portion of the subject property was idle and abandoned, but the
farmer-beneficiaries were already starting to cultivate their designated area of occupancy as
evidenced in the cutting of trees and some already started to plant crops. It was erroneous
to reclassify the acquired property into cornland and cocoland based on plaintiffs evidence
considering that the improvements were introduced by the farmers and farmworkers to the
property in determining its valuation. Consequently, there is a need to remand the case to
the court a quo for reception of evidence and final determination of just compensation
taking into account the factors under Section 17 of RA 6657. The Assailed decision of CA is

SET ASIDE. The records of the case were remanded to the court a quo which is directed to
determine the proper just compensation for the subject property.

CASTROVERDE, KRIZEL MARY B. LAW II-A

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF MAXIMO PUYAT and GLORIA PUYAT
G.R. No. 175055, June 27, 2012
J. Del Castillo,
FACTS
Gloria and Maximo Puyat, both deceased, are registered owners of a parcel of Riceland
located in Brgy. Bakod Bayan, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. Respondents are the heirs of
said owners and the pro-indiviso co-owners of the subject property. The DAR issued several
emancipation patents in favor of various farmer-beneficiaries all of said patents were
annotated on Puyats Transfer Certificate of Title and thereby caused the concomitant partial
cancellation of the latters title. Respondents did not receive any compensation for the
cancellation of their title over the awarded portions of the subject property. Two years after,
the LBP received orders from the DAR to pay just compensation to the Puyats. Upon
receiving the initial valuation together with the notice of acquisition, the respondents
rejected said valuation, it being ridiculously low. They then filed a complaint for
determination and payment of just compensation with the RTC of Cabanatuan City, Nueva
Ecija. The Trial court fixed a new valuation in accordance with RA 6657 plus legal interest
per annum from the date of taking. Upon LBPs motion, the trial court modified its decision
by reducing the compensable area to the actual area acquired by the DAR. Petitioner then
appealed the modified decision to the CA. The latter modified the RTC decision by imposing
the legal interest not from 1990 but from March 20 1990. LBP moved for reconsideration of
adverse decision which was denied by the appellate court
ISSUES
1. Whether or not lands acquired pursuant to PD 27 be valued using the factors
appearing in Section 17 of RA 6657.
2. Whether or not it is proper to impose the 6% legal interest per annum on the
unpaid just compensation.
3. Should the case be remanded to the trial court for the recomputation of just
compensation.
RULING
It has been held that when the government takes property pursuant to PD 27, but does
not pay the landowner his just compensation until after RA 6657 has taken effect in 1988, it
becomes more equitable to determine the just compensation using RA 6657. Both the
taking of respondents property and the valuation occurred during the effectivity of RA 6657.
The trial and appellate courts imposed and interest on the compensation given to the
respondents based on the finding that the LBP was guilty of delay. There is no need to

remand. After the parties filed their respective memorandum in 2007 and submitted the
case for resolution, congress passed a new agrarian reform law, RA 9700 which further
amended RA 6657. The former provides in section 5, that all valuations that are subject to
challenge by the landowners shall be completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17
of RA 6657, as amended. Lastly, the DAR and LBP appeared to be nonchalant in depriving
landowners of their properties. They seemed to have ignored the requirements of law, and
yet they asked for a strict compliance with the law when it came to compensating the
landowners. The rights of the Landowners cannot be lightly set aside and disregarded for
the attainment of the lofty ideals of agrarian reform. The Petition was DENIED by the SC for
lack of Merit, it also AFFIRMED the decision of the CA.