8/9/2019 Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises

1/3

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises

G.R. No. 172551, January 15, 2014

, BRION, J.

Topic: Power of Eminent Domain

Doctrine: The determination of just compensation is fundamentally a

judicial function. In the exercise of the Courts essentially u!icial function of

!eter"inin# ust co"$ensation, the R%C&'(Cs are not #rante! unli"ite!

!iscretion an! "ust consi!er an! a$$ly the enu"erate! factors in R.(. No.

))57 an! the *(R for"ula +in ( 5&-/ that reflect these factors. Courts

"ay, in the exercise of their !iscretion, relax the for"ulas a$$lication to fit

the factual situations efore the". %hey "ust, hoeer, clearly ex$lain the

reason for any !eiation fro" the factors an! for"ula that the la an! the

rules hae $roi!e!.

FACT:

Respondent Yatco Agricultural Enterprises (Yatco) was te registered owner

of a !"#$"%&'ectare parcel of agricultural land (propert) in aguna# On April%&, *+++, te goernment placed te propert under te coerage of its

-ompreensie Agrarian Reform Program (-ARP)#

Pursuant to E#O#No# .&$, te BP alued te propert at P*,*!/,*%!#0+#

Yatco did not find tis aluation accepta1le and tus eleated te matter to

te Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Proincial Agrarian Reform

Ad2udicator (PARAD) of 3an Pa1lo -it, wic ten conducted summar

administratie proceedings for te determination of 2ust compensation#

4e PARAD computed te alue of te propert at P*/,$.%,0&&&5 it used

te propert6s current mar7et alue (as sown in te ta8 declaration tat

Yatco su1mitted) and applied te formula 9:; 8 !#9 4e PARAD noted tat

te BP did not present an erified or autentic document to 1ac7 up its

computation5 ence, it 1rused aside te BP6s aluation#

4e BP did not moe to reconsider te PARAD6s ruling# Instead, it filed wit

te R4-'3A- a petition for te 2udicial determination of 2ust compensation#

!TC"AC # it fi8ed te 2ust compensation for te propert at P!&&& per

s

8/9/2019 Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises

2/3

4e BP added tat in adopting te aluation fi8ed 1 Brances %$ and %/,

te R4-'3A- completel disregarded te factors enumerated in 3ection *"

of R#A# No# //$" and te guidelines and procedure laid out in DAR AO $'+0#

>inall, te BP maintains tat it did not encroac on te R4-'3A-6s

prerogatie wen it fi8ed te aluation for te propert as it onl followed

3ection *" of R#A# No# //$" and DAR AO $'+0, and merel discarged its

mandate under E#O# No# .&$#

!espondent$s Argu%ent:

Yatco argues tat te R4-'3A- correctl fi8ed te 2ust compensation for its

propert at P!&&& per sirst, te R4-'3A-6s aluation was not onl 1ased on te aluation

fi8ed 1 Branc %/ (as adopted 1 Branc %$)5 it was also 1ased on te

propert6s mar7et alue as stated in te current ta8 declaration tat it

presented in eidence 1efore te R4-'3A-# 3econd, te R4-'3A-

considered te eidence of 1ot parties5 unfortunatel for te BP, te R4-'

3A- found its eidence wanting and in total disregard of te factors

enumerated in 3ection *" of R#A# No# //$"# And tird, te R4-'3A-

considered all of te factors enumerated in 3ection *" wen it set te

propert6s alue at P!&&& per s

8/9/2019 Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises

3/3

Considering that 3oth parties failed to adduce satisfactor+ evidence of

the propert+ s value at the ti%e of taking- 4e dee% it pre%ature to %ake

a final deter%ination of the %atter in controvers+.?e are not a trier of

facts and we cannot receie new eidence from te parties to aid tem in te

prompt resolution of tis case# =e are thus co%pelled to re%and the case

to the !TC"AC for the reception of evidence and the deter%ination of

*ust co%pensation- 4ith a cautionar+ re%inder for the proper

o3servance of the factors under ection / of !.A. )o. 001/ and theapplica3le DA! regulations# In its determination, te R4-'3A- ma

e8ercise te autorit granted to it 1 3ection $0 of R#A# No# //$"#

?ERE>ORE, in iew of tese considerations, we ere1 CRAN4 te

petition# Accordingl, we RE;ER3E and 3E4 A3IDE te decision of te -A

and RE:AND Agrarian -ase No# 3P'&/.(&!) to te R4- for its

determination of 2ust compensation under te terms of 3ection *" of Repu1lic

Act No# //$" and Department of Agrarian Reform Administratie Order No# $#