Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Land Bank of The Phils V Rivera
Land Bank of The Phils V Rivera
DECISION
PEREZ , J : p
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure led by Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) assailing the Decision
1 of the Court of Appeals dated 9 October 2007 in CA G.R. SP No. 87463, ordering the
payment by LBP of just compensation and interest in favor of respondents Esther
Anson Rivera, Antonio G. Anson and Cesar G. Anson, and at the same time directed LBP
to pay the costs of suit. Likewise assailed is the Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals
dated 18 March 2008 denying the Motion for Reconsideration of LBP. 3
The respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land embraced by
Original Certi cate of Title No. P-082, and later transferred in their names under
Transfer Certi cate of Title No. T-95690 that was placed under the coverage of
Operation Land Transfer pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 in 1972. Only 18.8704
hectares of the total area of 20.5254 hectares were subject of the coverage.
After the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) directed payment, LBP approved
the payment of P265,494.20, exclusive of the advance payments made in the form of
lease rental amounting to P75,415.88 but inclusive of 6% increment of P191,876.99
pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1994. 4
On 1 December 1994, the respondents instituted Civil Case No. 94-03 for
determination and payment of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 3 of Legaspi City, 5 claiming that the landholding involved was irrigated with two
cropping seasons a year with an average gross production per season of 100 cavans
of 50 kilos/hectare, equivalent of 200 cavans/year/hectare; and that the fair market
value of the property was not less that P130,000.00/hectare, or P2,668,302.00 for the
entire landholding of 20.5254 hectares.
LBP led its answer, 6 stating that rice and corn lands placed under the coverage
of Presidential Decree No. 27 7 were governed and valued in accordance with the
provisions of Executive Order No. 228 8 as implemented by DAR Administrative Order
No. 2, Series of 1987 and other statutes and administrative issuances; that the
administrative valuation of lands covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive
Order No. 228 rested solely in DAR and LBP was the only nancing arm; that the funds
that LBP would use to pay compensation were public funds to be disbursed only in
accordance with existing laws and regulations; that the supporting documents were
not yet received by LBP; and that the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 27 and
Executive Order No. 228 was already settled. AICTcE
LBP led a Motion for Reconsideration 1 0 which the RTC denied in its Order
dated 29 October 2004. 1 1
LBP next led a petition for Review to the Court of Appeals docketed as CA G.R.
SP No. 87463. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision dated 9 October 2007, the
fallo of which reads: 1 2
WHEREFORE, the DECISION DATED OCTOBER 6, 2004 is MODIFIED, ordering
petitioner LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES to pay to the respondents just
compensation (inclusive of interests as of October 6, 2004) in the amount of
P823,957.23, plus interest of 12% per annum on the amount of P515,777.57, or
P61,893.30 per annum, beginning October 7, 2004 until the just compensation is
fully paid in accordance with this decision.
CA = P(1+R)n
WHERE: P = Php164,059.26
R = 6% per annum
N = 22 years
COMPUTATION:
CA = 164,059.26 x (1+06) 22
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
CA = 164,059.26 x (1.06) 22
CA = 164,059.26 x 3.60353741
CA = Php591,193.68
Plus simple interest of 12% per annum from October 22, 1994 up to October 21,
2003, the formula of which is:
I=PxRxT
WHERE: P = Php591,193.68
R = 12% per annum
T = 9 years
COMPUTATION:
I = 591,193.68 x 12 x 9
I = 70,943.24 x 9
I = Php638,489.18
(Plus interest of 12% per annum from October 22, 2003 up to October 6, 2004 or a
period of 350 days)
RECAPITULATION:
Compounded Php591,193.68
Amount
Total Interest 706,516.95
—————————
TOTAL AMOUNT Php1,297,710.63
=============
The Court of Appeals pointed out that:
Pursuant to AO 13, considering that the landholding involved herein was tenanted
prior to October 21, 1972, the rate of 6% per annum is imposed, compounded
annually from October 21, 1972 until October 21, 1994, the date of the effectivity
of AO 13. Beyond October 21, 1994, only the simple rate of 6% per annum interest
is imposable until October 6, 2004 (the date of the rendition of the decision of the
RTC) on the total value (that is, P164,059.26 plus the compounded increments up
to October 21, 1994) but minus the lease rentals of P75,415.88. Only the simple
rate of 6% is applicable up to then because the obligation to pay was not founded
on a written agreement that stipulated a different rate of interest. From October 7,
2004 until the full payment, the simple interest rate is raised to 12% per annum.
The reason is that the amount thus determined had by then acquired the
character of a forbearance in money. 1 3
LBP disagreed with the imposition of 12% interest and its liability to pay the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
costs of suit. It led a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied in the Court of
Appeals' Resolution dated 18 March 2008.
The Court of Appeals held:
We DENY the petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration for the following
reasons, to wit:
1.Anent the rst ground, the decision of October 9, 2007 has explained in detail
why the obligation of the petitioner should be charged 12% interest. Considering
that the motion fails to persuasively show that a modi cation of the decision
thereon would be justified, we reject such ground for lack of merit.SDHITE
2.Regarding costs of suit, they are allowed to the prevailing party as a matter of
course, unless there be special reasons for the court to decree otherwise (Sec. 1,
Rule 43, Rules of Court). In appeals, the Court has the power to render judgment
for costs as justice may require (Sec. 2, Rule 142, Rules of Court).
In view of the foregoing, the award of costs to the respondents was warranted
under the circumstances. 1 4
Before this Court, LBP raises the same issues for resolution:
I.Is it valid or lawful to award 12% rate of interest per annum in favor of
respondents notwithstanding the 6% rate of interest per annum compounded
annually prescribed under DAR A.O. No. 13, series of 1994, DAR A.O. No. 02, series
of 2004, and DAR A.O. No. 06, series of 2008, ". . . from November 1994 up to the
time of actual payment?
II.Is it valid or lawful to adjudge petitioner LBP, which is performing a
governmental function, liable for costs of suit? 1 5
At the outset, the Court notes that the parcels of land subject matter of this case
were acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27, but the complaint for just
compensation was led in the RTC on 1 December 1994 after Republic Act No. 6657
already took into effect. 1 6 Thus, our pronouncement in LBP v. Soriano 1 7 nds
application. We quote:
. . . [I]f just compensation is not settled prior to the passage of Republic Act No.
6657, it should be computed in accordance with the said law, although the
property was acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27. The xing of just
compensation should therefore be based on the parameters set out in Republic
Act No. 6657, with Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 having
only suppletory effect.
In the instant case, while the subject lands were acquired under Presidential
Decree No. 27, the complaint for just compensation was only lodged before the
court on 23 November 2000 or long after the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 in
1998. Therefore, Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 should be the
principal basis of the computation for just compensation . As a matter of
fact, the factors enumerated therein had already been translated into a basic
formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of
Republic Act No. 6657. The formula outlines in DAR Administrative Order No. 5,
series of 1998 should be applied in computing just compensation, thus:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
That settled, we now proceed to resolve the issue of the propriety of the
imposition of 12% interest on just compensation awarded to the respondents. The
Court of Appeals imposed interest of 12% per annum on the amount of P515,777.57
beginning 7 October 2004, until full payment.
We agree with the Court of Appeals.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals, 1 9 we af rmed the award of 12% interest on just
compensation due to the landowner. The court decreed:
The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum
equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described to be the price
xed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action
and competition or the fair value of the property as between one who receives,
and one who desires to sell, if xed at the time of the actual taking by the
government. Thus, if property is taken for public use before compensation
is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the nal
compensation must include interest on its just value to be computed
from the time the property is taken to the time when compensation is
actually paid or deposited with the court. In ne, between the taking of
the property and the actual payment, legal interests accrue in order to
place the owner in a position as good as (but not better than) the
position he was in before the taking occurred.
The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was correct in imposing interest on
the zonal value of the property to be computed from the time petitioner instituted
condemnation proceedings and "took" the property in September 1969. This
allowance of interest on the amount found to be the value of the property as of
the time of the taking computed, being an effective forbearance, at 12% per
annum should help eliminate the issue of the constant uctuation and in ation
of the value of the currency over time. 2 0
We similarly upheld Republic's 12% per annum interest rate on the unpaid
expropriation compensation in the following cases: Reyes v. National Housing
Authority, 2 1 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, 2 2 Republic v. Court of Appeals, 2 3
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial, 2 4 Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-
Bondoc, 2 5 Nepomuceno v. City of Surigao, 2 6 and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority.
27
Conformably with the foregoing resolution, this Court rules that a 12% interest
per annum on just compensation, due to the respondents, from the nality of this
decision until its satisfaction, is proper. 2 8
We now proceed to the issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly
adjudged LBP liable to pay the cost of suit.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
According to LBP, it performs a governmental function when it disburses the
Agrarian Reform Fund to satisfy awards of just compensation. Hence, it cannot be
made to pay costs in eminent domain proceedings.
LBP cites Sps. Badillo v. Hon. Tayag, 2 9 to further bolster its claim that it is
exempt from the payment of costs of suit. The Court in that case made the following
pronouncement:
On the other hand, the NHA contends that it is exempt from paying all kinds of
fees and charges, because it performs governmental functions. It cites Public
Estates Authority v. Yujuico, which holds that the Public Estates Authority (PEA), a
government-owned and controlled corporation, is exempt from paying docket fees
whenever it files a suit in relation to its governmental functions.
ETHIDa
This is not the rst time We are ruling on the proper characterization of housing
as an activity of the government. In the 1985 case of National Housing
Corporation v. Juco and the NLRC (No. L-64313, January 17, 1985, 134 SCRA
172), We ruled that housing is a governmental function.
While it has not always been easy to distinguish governmental from proprietary
functions, the Court's declaration in the Decision quoted above is not without
basis. Indeed, the characterization of governmental functions has veered away
from the traditional constituent-ministrant classi cation that has become
unrealistic, if not obsolete. Justice Isagani A. Cruz avers: "[I]t is now obligatory
upon the State itself to promote social justice, to provide adequate social services
to promote a rising standard of living, to afford protection to labor to formulate
and implement urban and agrarian reform programs, and to adopt other
measures intended to ensure the dignity, welfare and security of its citizens . . .
These functions, while traditionally regarded as merely ministrant and optional,
have been made compulsory by the Constitution." 3 0
We agree with the LBP. The relevant provision of the Rules of Court states:
Rule 142
Costs
Section 1.Costs ordinarily follow results of suit. — Unless otherwise provided
in these rules, costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party as a matter
of course but the court shall have power, for special reasons adjudge that either
party shall pay the costs of an action, or that the same be divided, as may be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
equitable. No costs shall be allowed against the Republic of the
Philippines unless otherwise provided by law .
Footnotes
*Per Special Order No. 913, Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta is designated as additional
member in place of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo who is on official leave.
1.Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of this Court), with Associate
Justices Portia Aliño Hormachuelos and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, concurring. Rollo, pp.
50-62.
2.Id. at 82-83.
3.Id. at 7.
4.Memorandum of the Petitioner.
5.Rollo, p. 139.
6.Id. at 146.
7.Entitled, "Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil Transferring
to Them the Ownership of the Land They Till and Providing the Instruments and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Mechanism Therefor."
8.Declaring full land ownership to quali ed farmer bene ciaries covered by Presidential Decree
No. 27. Determining the value of remaining unvalued rice and corn lands subject to
Presidential Decree No. 27 and providing for the manner of payment by the farmer
beneficiary and modes of compensation to the landowners.
9.Id. at 122.
10.Id. at 124.
11.Id. at 123.
12.Id. at 10-20.
13.Id. at 56-57.
14.Id. at 62.
15.Id. at 6.
16.Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), which took effect on 15 June 1988.
17.G.R. Nos. 180772 and 180776, 6 May 2010; s ee also Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Gallego, Jr., G.R. No. 173226, 20 January 2009, 576 SCRA 680; Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Heirs of Asuncion Añonuevo Vda. De Santos, G.R. No. 179862, 3
September 2009, 598 SCRA 115.