LANDBANK v. HEIRS OF JOSE TAPULADO

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner vs HEIRS OF JOSE TAPULADO, Respondents

G.R. No. 199141

March 8, 2017

FACTS:

Jose Tapulado, now deceased, was the owner of two (2) parcels of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. (P-17535) P-2788 with an area of 17 .8393 hectares located in Kiblagon, Sulop, Davao del Sur, and OCT No. (P-4518) P-1277 with an area of 11.1359 hectares situated in Kisulan, Kiblawan, Davao del Sur.

In 1972, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the subject lands under the coverage of the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27; and in 1978, awarded them to the farmer-beneficiaries. Tapulado, however, did not receive any compensation from the government.

It was just on March 24, 1980, that the DAR and the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) computed the value of the subject lands, placing them at P38,002.47 or P1,315 .00 per hectare.

The respondents, the Heirs of Tapulado (Tapulados), rejected the valuation of the subject lands after the DAR and the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) computed the value of the subject lands. They filed a petition to the RTC, sitting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC), for the determination and payment of just compensation.

ISSUE:

Can the Tapulados demand for the computation of just compensation with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and Landbank of the Philippines (LBP)?

HELD:

Yes. Though the Court is fully aware that the subject properties have been taken by the government since 1972, it has no option but to affirm the CA order of remand to the RTC for the computation of the just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 because the basis for the RTC determination of just compensation was not clear.

In the determination of just compensation, the R TC should be guided by the following: (1) Just compensation must be valued at the time of taking, or the time when the owner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, that is, the date when the title or the emancipation patents were issued in the names of the farmer beneficiaries.

(2) Just compensation must be determined pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 9700. Nevertheless, while it should take into account the different formulas created by the DAR in arriving at the just compensation, it is not strictly bound thereto if the situations before it do not warrant their application. In which case, the RTC must clearly explain the reasons for deviating therefrom, and for using other factors or formulas in arriving at a reasonable just compensation.

(3) Interest may be awarded as warranted by the circumstances of the case and based on prevailing jurisprudence. In previous cases, the Court had allowed the grant of legal interest in expropriation cases where there was delay in the payment since the just compensation due to the landowners was deemed to be an effective forbearance on the part of the State. Legal interest on the unpaid balance shall be fixed at the rate of 12% per annum from the time of taking and 6% per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid.