G.R. No.

192345, March 29, 2017

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ESTEBAN AND CRESENCIA CHU, Respondents.

FACTS
Respondents were the registered owners of two parcels of agricultural land located in San Antonio, Pilar,
Sorsogon which were acquired by the government pursuant to its agrarian reform program.3 The first
parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-27060 and 27062 and with an area of
14.9493 hectares (14.9493 has.) was acquired under Presidential Decree No. 274 (PD 27-acquired land)
and initially valued by the LBP at P177,657.98.5 The second parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-27060
(pt.) was acquired under Republic Act No. 66576 (RA 6657-acquired property) and has an area of 7.7118
hectares (7.7118 has.). LBP valued the same at P263,928.57.7
Respondents rejected LBP's valuation; hence summary administrative proceedings were conducted
before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) to determine the just compensation.
The administrative proceedings were docketed as Land Valuation Case No. LV-30-'03 for the RA 6657-
acquired property and Land Valuation Case No. LV-48-'03 for the PD 27- acquired land.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW WHEN INSOFAR AS THE
RA 6657-ACQUIRED LAND, IT DISREGARDED THE VALUATION FACTORS UNDER SECTION 17 OF RA 6657
AND THE PERTINENT DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS IN FIXING ITS VALUE AT P1,542,360.00.
RULING
The LBP used the formula LV = (CNI x. 90) + (MV x .10). Concededly, it was able to sufficiently establish
the Capitalized Net Income (CNI) factor43 of the formula. However, the same is not true regarding the
Market Value (MV) component thereof. While the CNI factor, as computed in the Claims Valuation and
Processing Form (Claims Form), finds support from and can be adequately explained by a simple perusal
of the documents forming part of the records of this case,44 the MV component, on the other hand,
does not
We cannot agree to the valuations fixed by the PARAD and the RTC, valuations that found their way into
rulings that were affirmed in toto and with modification by the CA, respectively. These rulings were
arrived at in clear disregard of the formula set forth under DAR A.O. No. 05-98. As borne out by their
respective Decisions, these tribunals considered only the Comparable Sales (CS) factor to the exclusion
of the other factors, namely, the CNI and MV.

[ GR No. 175726, Mar 22, 2017 ]

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ANTONIO MARCOS

FACTS

The deceased Antonio Marcos, Sr. (Antonio) was the owner of two parcels of agricultural land or
landholdings located at Malbog, Pilar, Sorsogon, consisting of 14.9274 hectares and 9.4653 hectares.
On April 3, 1995, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657, Ramiro Marcos (Ramiro), authorized representative
of the heirs of Antonio offered to sell the landholdings to the Republic of the Philippines through its
implementing arm, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
On July 10, 1996, petitioner LBP valued the lands covered by TCT Nos. 2552 and 2562 at ₱195,603.70
and ₱79,096.26, respectively.
Ramiro filed with the DAR two (2) Landowner's Reply to Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition forms
pertaining to the landholdings. In the said forms, Ramiro indicated that the respondents were accepting
LBP's valuation of the landholdings. On the same date, the DAR Regional Director sent a memorandum
to the LBP requesting the preparation of a deed of transfer over the landholdings and payment of the
purchase price to respondents based on petitioner's valuation.
While the payment of the purchase price is pending, the DAR brought the matter of valuation to the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
Disagreeing with the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator, the LBP filed a petition for judicial
determination of just compensation for the landholdings with the RTC sitting as a Special Agrarian Court
(SAC).

ISSUEs

1. CAN THE COURT OF APPEALS OR THE SAC DISREGARD THE VALUATION FACTORS
UNDER SECTION 17 OF R.A. 6657 WHICH ARE TRANSLATED INTO A BASIC FORMULA IN
DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF
SPS. BANAL AND CELADA, IN FIXING THE JUST COMPENSATION FOR SUBJECT
PROPERTIES?

2. CAN THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATOR (PARAD) ABROGATE, VARY

OR ALTER A CONSUMMATED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND
RESPONDENTS IN REGARD TO SUBJECT PROPERTIES?

RULING:

The fixing of just compensation that is based on the landowner's prayer falls within the exercise of
the RTC-SAC's discretion and, therefore, should be upheld as a valid exercise of its
jurisdiction.31 Similarly, the fixing of just compensation based on the decision of the Provincial
Adjudicator in this case is within the context of this judicial prerogative. However, a reading of the
decisions of the P ARAD would reveal that he did not apply or consider the formula in DAR AO No.
5, series of 1998. He based his decision with the rule on admissibility of evidence of bona fide sales
transaction of nearby places in determining the market value of like properties and applied the
valuation of LBP with the property of Norma Marcos Clemente and Hacienda de Ares after .ruling
that the properties of respondents are comparable with the said properties.32 His decisions did not
mention the consideration of the formula laid down by the DAR in the valuation of the properties of
respondents.

To reiterate, when acting within the parameters set by the law itself, the RTC-SACs are not strictly
bound to apply the DAR formula to its minute detail, particularly when faced with situations that do
not warrant the formula's strict application; they may, in the exercise of their discretion, relax the
formula's application to fit the factual situations before them. They must, however, clearly explain the
reason for any deviation from the factors and formula that the law and the rules have provided.

The LBP's valuation of lands covered by the CARP Law is considered only as an initial
determination, which is not conclusive, as it is the RTC-SAC that could make the final determination
of just compensation, taking into consideration the factors provided in R.A. No. 6657 and the
applicable DAR regulations. The LBP's valuation has to be substantiated during an appropriate
hearing before it could be considered sufficient in accordance with Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and
the DAR regulations.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
VS.
PHIL-AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
G.R. NO. 193987 March 13, 2017

FACTS

The subject of this petition is 19 parcels of land situated in Baungon, Bukidnon, with an aggregate area
of 267.0048 hectares, registered under the name of the respondent. These landholdings were then
placed under the compulsory coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) by the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). The petitioner offered an initial valuation of ₱ 2,139,996.57 for
the subject landholdings but this offer was rejected by the respondent. A summary hearing was then
conducted before the DAR Adjudication Board for the valuation of the subject landholding.

ISSUE
Whether or not the award of 1% per annum on the amount of just compensation counted from
September 16, 1992 is proper.

RULING

The compensation, to be considered as just, must be fair and equitable. Moreover, the landowners
must have received it without any delay. The requirement of the law is not satisfied by the mere deposit
with any accessible bank of the provisional compensation determined by it or by the DAR. As to the
proper reckoning point of legal interest, the Court ruled that just compensation should be determined at
the time of the property's taking. In this case, it should be reckoned from the issuance date of the CLOA
which is September 16, 1992. It has already been 25 years but the respondent has not yet received the
full amount of just compensation that was due. The long delay therefore entitles them to the payment
of interest to compensate for the loss of income due to the taking.

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.

Union bank vs heirs of jose tapulado

FACTS

Petitioner Union Bank of the Philippines (Union Bank) is the duly registered owner of land located at
Barangay Bunggo, Calamba, Laguna covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-137846
and T-156610 of the Registry of Deeds of Laguna with areas of 1,083,250 and 260,132 square
meters, respectively.1

Union Bank offered these parcels of land to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) through the
Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) arrangement under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) of the government.

On June 29, 1995, Union Bank filed a "Motion to Withdraw Voluntary Offer To Sell On Property from
CARP Coverage" in the land valuation proceedings for the land covered by TCT No. T-156610
pending before the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region IV.

ISSUE:

The first is whether the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board has jurisdiction over
petitions for cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award involving parties who do not have
a tenancy relationship.
The second is whether the factual findings of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform can be questioned in
a petition for review on certiorari.

RULING:

The jurisdiction of a court or tribunal over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by
law.43 Section 5044 of the CARL and Section 1745 of EO No. 229 vested upon the DAR primary-
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, as well as original jurisdiction over
all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform. Through EO No. 129-A,46 the power to
adjudicate agrarian reform cases was transferred to the DARAB,47 and jurisdiction over the
implementation of agrarian reform was delegated to the DAR regional offices.48In Heirs of Candido
Del Rosario v. Del Rosario,49 we held that consistent with the DARAB Rules of Procedure,50 the
agrarian reform cases that fall within the jurisdiction of the P ARAD and DARAB are those that
involve agrarian disputes. Section 3(d) of the CARL defines an "agrarian dispute" as any controversy
relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands
devoted to agriculture.51 Given the technical legal meaning of the term "agrarian dispute," it follows
that not all cases involving agricultural lands automatically fall within the jurisdiction of the PARAD
and DARAB.

Settled is the n1le that factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari, as a
petition for review under Rule 45 is limited only to questions of law. Moreover, it is doctrine that the
"errors" which may be reviewed by this Court in a petition for certiorari are those of the Court of
Appeals, and not directly those of the trial court or the quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, or officer which
rendered the decision in the first instance. Finally, it is settled that factual findings of administrative
agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such findings are
supported by substantial evidence, a situation that obtains in this case. The factual findings of the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform who, by reason of his official position, has acquired expertise in
specific matters within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not
to be altered, modified or reversed.
G.R. No. 194137, June 21, 2017
AMBASSADOR HOTEL, INC., Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondent.

FACTS

Sometime in September 2001, the SSS filed a complaint with the City Prosecutor's Office of Quezon City
against Ambassador Hotel, Inc. (Ambassador Hotel) and its officers for non-remittance of SSS
contributions and penalty liabilities for the period from June 1999 to March 2001 in the aggregate
amount of P769,575.48.

After preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor's Office filed an Information,4 dated January 28,
2004, before the RTC charging Ambassador Hotel, Inc.'s Yolanda Chan (Yolanda), as President and
Chairman of the Board; and Alvin Louie Rivera, as Treasurer and Head of the Finance Department, with
violation of Section 22(a), in relation to Section 22(d) and Section 28(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1161,
as amended by R.A. No. 8282. Only Yolanda was arrested. Upon arraignment, she pleaded not guilty.
Thereafter, trial ensued.

ISSUE

Ambassador Hotel is obligated to remit SSS contributions

RULING

Under Section 8(c) of R.A. No. 8282, an employer is defined as "any person, natural or juridical, domestic
or foreign, who carries on in the Philippines any trade, business, industry, undertaking, or activity of any
kind and uses the services of another person who is under his orders as regards the employment, except the
Government and any of its political subdivisions, branches or instrumentalities, including corporations owned
or controlled by the Government."

Verily, prompt remittance of SSS contributions under the aforesaid provision is mandatory. Any divergence
from this rule subjects the employer not only to monetary sanctions, that is, the payment of penalty of three
percent (3%) per month, but also to criminal prosecution if the employer fails to: (a) register its employees
with the SSS; (b) deduct monthly contributions from the salaries/wages of its employees; or (c) remit to the
SSS its employees' SSS contributions and/or loan payments after deducting the same from their respective
salaries/wages.11

To acquire jurisdiction over Ambassador Hotel, its managing head, director or partner must be arrested

As discussed above, even when the employer is a corporation, it shall still be held liable for the non-
remittance of SSS contributions. It is, however, the head, directors or officers that shall suffer the personal
criminal liability. Although a corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from that
of the persons composing it,12 the corporate veil is pierced when a director, trustee or officer is made
personally liable by specific provision of law.

LBP vs Rural Bank

FACTS

Respondent is the registered owner of two (2) parcels of agricultural land situated in Saba,
Hermosa, Bataan, with a total area of 2.1718 hectares, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
Nos. T-114713[6] and T-114714.[7] Respondent voluntarily offered to sell (VOS) the same to the
government but only the subject land was acquired, and placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 6657,[8] as amended.[9]
Petitioner the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued the subject land at P28,282.09[10] using the
formula under Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order No. (AO) 17, Series of
1989,[11] as amended by DAR AO 03, Series of 1991 (DAR AO 17, Series of 1989, as
amended),[12] i.e., LV = (CNI x .70) + (MV x .30),[13] but respondent rejected the said valuation,
prompting the LBP to deposit the said amount in the latter's name.[14]
Dissatisfied, respondent filed before the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC), a
petition[19] seeking the determination of just compensation for the subject land, or in the
alternative, to be allowed to withdraw its VOS should the valuation arrived at be unacceptable to it.

ISSUE

whether or not the CA committed reversible error in upholding the RTC's valuation fixing the just compensation for the
subject land at P30.00 per sq. m.

RULING

In the present case, the CA merely upheld the just compensation fixed by the RTC which considered only the nature of the
land's use, and its assessed value based on the tax declarations, without a showing, however, that the other factors under
Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, were taken into account or otherwise found to be inapplicable, and completely
disregarded the pertinent DAR formula contrary to what the law requires. On this score alone, the CA clearly erred in
sustaining the RTC's valuation as having been made in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended.

Records further show that during the summary administrative proceedings before the PARAD,[44] the subject land was
revalued in accordance with DAR AO 6, Series of 1992 and DAR AO 11, Series of 1994,[45] but resulted to a lower
valuation on both instances.[46] Nonetheless, the records are bereft of showing why the LBP insisted upon the
applicability of DAR AO 17, Series of 1989, as amended, instead of the said AOs.

LBP VS OMENGAN

FACTS

On March 20, 2000, respondent received a notice of coverage from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placing the
subject property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).[7] Field investigation was then conducted
and the property was initially valued by petitioner at Php 219,524.98

Respondent rejected the offer. DAR requested petitioner to deposit in the respondent's name the amount of the initial
valuation. Thus, on December 12, 2000, petitioner deposited the sum of Php 219,524.98 in cash and agrarian reform
bonds.

ISSUE

whether OR NOT Determination of Just

Compensation is Essentially a
Judicial Function

RULING

We emphasize that in determining just compensation, the RTC-SAC necessarily works within the parameters set by law
and as such, should take into account the formulae provided by DAR.45 Be that as it may, when acting within the
parameters set by the law itself, the RTC-SACs, are not strictly bound to apply the DAR formulae to its minute detail46
when the situation does not warrant the formula's strict application. The RTC, in the exercise of its judicial function of
determining just compensation, cannot be restrained or delimited in the performance of its judicial function of
determining just compensation as to do so would amount to a derogation of its judicial prerogative.

It is likewise jurisprudentially-settled that the valuation of property or determination of just compensation in eminent
domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the courts and not with administrative
agencies.42 By law,43 the RTC-SAC enjoys original and exclusive jurisdiction in determining just compensation for lands
acquired for purposes of agrarian reform.

Nevertheless, in the exercise of its judicial function to determine just compensation, the RTC-SAC takes into consideration
the factors enumerated under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657. DAR, on the other hand, is empowered under R.A. No. 6657 to
promulgate rules for its implementation. Hence, pursuant to its rule-making power, DAR issued A.O. No. 5-98 which
translated the factors listed under R.A. No. 6657 into a basic and alternative formulae.44 This brings Us to petitioner's
postulate that the RTC-SAC ought to strictly abide by the provisions of DAR A.O. No. 5-98, describing the latter as
mandatory.

PNB vs Dalmacio

FACTS

The case stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of separation pay and retirement benefits, illegal
deduction, nonpayment of provident fund with prayer for damages and attorney's fees filed by Jumelito T. Dalmacio
(Dalmacio) and Emma R. Martinez (Martinez)4 as a result of their separation from PNB way back September 15, 2005 due
to PNB's implemention of its redundancy program. Dalmacio and · Martinez were hired as utility worker and
communication equipment operator, respectively, by the National Service Corporation, a subsidiary of PNB. Years later,
Dalmacio became an Information Technology (IT) officer of PNB, while Martinez became a Junior IT Field Analyst.

ISSUE:

Whether or not PNB validly implemented its redundancy program

RULING

In the case at bar, PNB was upfront with its employees about its plan to implement its redundancy program. The LA
correctly observed that:

[I]t is undisputed that the outsourcing of the service and maintenance of the Bank's computer hardware and equipment to
Technopaq, Inc. was devised and/or implemented after consultation with the affected employees in the presence of their
union officers between July 29 and August 5, 2005.21

This was echoed by the NLRC, thus:

Respondents were able to show substantial proof that it underwent redundancy program and that complainants herein
voluntarily accepted the Special Redundancy Package offered by respondent bank to its employees. In fact, they were
officially notified of the management's decision to terminate their employment as early as August 15, 2005 x x x; and
Complainants and their union officers were even consulted of the respondent's decision to terminate its employees on
[the] ground of redundancy between July 29 and August 5, 2005. Complainants agreed and accepted the decision. x x x.22

Even the CA intoned that:

Even after he ceased working with private respondent PNB, petitioner was not left jobless as he readily accepted a job
offer with Technopaq who employed him for three years. Only after he ceased working with Technopaq that he
conveniently filed a case for illegal dismissal against PNB claiming other monetary benefits allegedly due him and after
receiving substantial amount of separation pay. Hence this Court suspects the timing and intention of petitioner in filing
the complaint for illegal dismissal.23

DAR vs Galle

FACTS

On September 22, 2014, petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) filed a Motion for Reconsideration[3] arguing that
it was improper for this Court to declare null and void the October 15, 1996 Decision in DARAB Case No. JC-RIX-ZAMBO-
0011-CO, which fixed just compensation on the basis of outdated 1991 data instead of valuation criteria as of 1993, the
time of taking of the subject property; that said October 15, 1996 DARAB Decision is already final and executory and thus
beyond judicial review, even by this Court; and that even if it were to be assumed that said DARAB Decision is null and
void, it nonetheless cannot be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the determination of just compensation is a judicial function

RULING

in the exercise ofthe Court’s essentially judicial function of determining just compensation, the RTC-
SACs are not granted unlimited discretion and must consider and apply the R.A. No. 6657-
enumerated factors and the DAR formula that reflectthese factors. These factors and formula
provide the uniform framework or structure for the computation of the just compensation for a
property subject to agrarian reform. This uniform system will ensure that they do not arbitrarily fix an
amount that is absurd, baseless and even contradictory to the objectives of our agrarian reform laws
as just compensation. This system will likewise ensure that the just compensation fixed represents,
at the very least, a close approximation of the full and real value of the property taken that is fair and
equitable for both the farmer-beneficiaries and the landowner.