Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VALUATION
HOW
DOES
JUST
Criteria in determining just compensation.
1. Section 17of Republic Act No. 6657,
as amended by RA 9700
COMPENSATION
BE
Cost of acquisition of the land
Value of the standing crop
DETERMINED?
LV = MV x 2
RECKONING OF VALUATION
In determining just compensation, the value of
the property at the time it was taken from the
owner and appropriated by the government
shall be the basis.
However, if there is undue delay in payment,
the value of the propetry should be determined
NOT at the time of taking of the land, but at
the time of full payment of the just
compensation.
MODES OF PAYMENT
A. Cash and financial instruments of the
government, payable as follows:
Features:
a. 10% of the face value of the bonds shall mature
every year from the date of issuance until the
10th year;
b. the bonds are transferable and negotiable;
c. the bonds can be used for any of the following:
i.
ii.
vi. Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original
bondholder in government universities, colleges, trade schools and
other institutions;
vii. Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in
government hospitals; and
STAGES OF LAND
TRANSFER
The land transfer under P.D. No. 27 is
effected in the two (2) stages;
namely:
1. Issuance of a Certificate of Land
Transfer (CLT) to the farmerbeneficiary; and
2. Issuance of Emancipation Patent
(EP).
P.D. NO. 27
THE VALUE OF THE LAND SHALL BE EQUIVALENT
TO TWO AND ONE HALF (2-1/2) TIMES THE AVERAGE
HARVEST OF THREE NORMAL CROP YEARS
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PROMULGATION OF
THIS DECREE
THE TOTAL COST OF THE LAND, INCLUDING
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF SIX (6) PERCENTUM PER
ANNUM, SHALL BE PAID BY THE TENANT IN
FIFTEEN (15) YEARS OF FIFTEEN (15) EQUAL
ANNUAL AMORTIZATIONS.
IN CASE OF DEFAULT, THE AMORTIZATIONS DUE
SHALL BE PAID BY THE FARMERS COOPERATIVE IN
WHICH THE DEFAULTING TENANT-FARMER IS A
COMPENSATION SCHEME
1. Direct payment to the landowner by the
farmer-beneficiaries, in cash or in kind;
2. Payment by the Land Bank with 10%
payable in cash and the balance payable in
the form of Land Bank bonds over a 10year period;
3. Other modes of payment as may be
prescribed or approved by the Presidential
Agrarian Reform Council (PARC).
CANCELLATION OF EP
Emancipation Patents may be cancelled on the
following grounds:
1. Abandonment of the land;
2. Neglect or misuse of land;
3.Failure to pay three (3) annual amortization;
4.Misuse or diversion of financial and support
services;
5. Sale, transfer or conveyance of the right to
use the land; and
6. Illegal conversion of the land.
TRANSFERABILITY OF THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND
P.D. No. 27
The tenant-beneficiary cannot sell or transfer
ownership of the land acquired under the
Tenant Emancipation Law, except to the
Government or by hereditary succession.
E.O. 228, Section 6
Ownership of lands acquired by a farmerbeneficiary may be transferred after full
payment of amortizations.
Jose Caguiat filed a petition before the trial court for the
determination of just compensation for their agricultural lands which
were acquired by the government pursuant to PD 27 in 1972. The trial
court rendered a decision in favor of Jose Caguiat ordering DAR and Land
Bank to pay the amount of P30.00 per square meter. According to Land
Bank, Jose Caguiat should have sought the reconsideration of the DARs
valuation of their properties and that they failed to exhaust
administrative remedies when they filed a petition for the determination
of just compensation directly with the trial court. Land Bank further
alleged that the trial court erred in declaring that PD27 and EO228 are
mere guidelines in the determination just compensation, and relying of
Jose Caguiats evidence of the valuation of the properties at the time of
possession in 1993 and not on Land Banks evidence of the value thereof
as of the time of acquisition in 1972.
Issue:
Whether or not Jose Caguiat failed to exhaust administrative
remedies.
Ruling:
No. Land Banks contention is not entirely true. Jose Caguiat
wrote a letter to the DAR Secretary objecting to the land valuation
summary submitted by Municipal Agrarian Reform Office and
requesting a conference for the purpose of fixing just compensation.
The letter, however, was left unanswered prompting Jose to file a
petition directly with the trial court
In accordance with settled principles of administrative law,
primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR to determine in a
preliminary manner the just compensation for the lands taken under
the agrarian reform program, but such determination is subject to
challenge before the courts. The resolution of just compensation cases
for the taking of lands under agrarian reform is, after all, essentially
a judicial function.
Issue:
Whether or not just compensation should be determined at the
time of acquisition and not at the time of possession.
Ruling:
No. The agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just
compensation to be paid to Jose has yet to be settled. Considering the
passage of RA 6657 before the completion of this process, the just
compensation should be determined and the process concluded under
the said law. Indeed, RA6657 is the applicable law, with PD27 and
EO228 having only suppletory effect.
Not satisfied with the valuation, LBP filed two separate petitionsfor
judicial determination of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court
acting as a Special Agrarian Court. The petitioners prayed that LBP should
deposit the preliminary compensation determined by the PARAD. The trial
court ordered LBP to deposit the compensation as determined by the PARAD.
LBP filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The appellate court
issued a 60-day temporary restraining order. The Court of Appeals rendered a
Decisionin favor of the petitioners. The Court of Appeals held that the trial
court correctly ordered LBP to deposit the amounts provisionally determined
by the PARAD as there is no law which prohibits LBP to make a deposit
pending the fixing of the final amount of just compensation. It also noted that
there is no reason for LBP to further delay the deposit considering that the
DAR already took possession of the properties and distributed the same to
farmer-beneficiaries as early as 1972.
LBP moved for reconsideration. The CA reversed its own decision. the
Court of Appeals held that the immediate deposit of the preliminary value of
the expropriated properties is improper because it was erroneously computed.
Petitioners insist that the determination of just compensation should be
based on the value of the expropriated properties at the time of payment.
Respondent LBP, on the other hand, claims that the value of the realties
should be computed as of October 21, 1972 when P.D. No. 27 took effect.
Issue:
Whether or not the the determination of just compensation should be
based on the value of the expropriated properties at the time of payment.
Ruling:
Yes. In the instant case, petitioners were deprived of their properties
in 1972 but have yet to receive the just compensation therefor.The
parcels of land were already subdivided and distributed to the farmerbeneficiaries thereby immediately depriving petitioners of their use.
Under the circumstances, it would be highly inequitable on the part of
the petitioners to compute the just compensation using the values at the
time of the taking in 1972, and not at the time of the payment,
considering that the government and the farmer-beneficiaries have
already benefited from the land although ownership thereof have not yet
been transferred in their names. Petitioners were deprived of their
properties without payment of just compensation which, under the law,
is a prerequisite before the property can be taken away from its
owners.The transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the
government are conditioned upon the receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the compensation with
an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner.