Republic of the Philippines

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

Regional Trial Court
Branch 23
Cabanatuan City

VILLE-VEN FARMS, INC.,

Represented by its Attorney-in-fact,
ROSENDO HERRERA,

Petitioner,

-versus- Agrarian Case No.

211-AF
For: Just Compensation

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM and LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
Respondents.
X----------------------------------------------X

AMENDED ANSWER
with
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Respondent LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP for

brevity), by undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court, answering
the Petition, respectfully alleges that:

1. Paragraph 1 is denied for lack of knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;

2. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are admitted;

3. Paragraph 5 is admitted as the regards the Memorandum of

Valuation but denies the rest for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;

4. Paragraph 6 is admitted as regards the rejection of the

petitioner of the LBP’s valuation but denies the rest for LBP
had in fact faithfully complied with the applicable DAR
Administrative Order and issuances relative to the
computation of the value of the subject landholding, thus it
cannot be gainsaid that the valuation arrived at by LBP is
unjust and unfair in the realm of agrarian reform;

1
 4.1 LBP computed land value using DAR AO 2, Series of
2009, which contains the formula promulgated by the
DAR after due regard to all the factors enumerated
under Section 17 of RA 6657 as amended. The value of
the subject property is One Hundred Forty Four
Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Five Pesos and
65/100 (Php144.785.65) for the acquired 8.5739
hectares using the relevant formula: LV = (0.90 x ZVI)
+ (0.10 x MV), under DAR Administrative Order No.
2, Series of 2009, computed as follows:

For Uncultivated:
LV = (0.90 x ZVI) + (0.10 x MV)
= (0.90 x Php14,000.00) + (0.10 x Php42,867.86)
= Php12,600.00 + Php4,286.79
= Php16,886.79/hectare
= Php16,886.79 x 8.5739 hectares
=Php144,785.65

Attached hereto are the certified true copies of the Field

Investigation Report and the Land Valuation Worksheet as ANNEX “1”
to “1-F“ and ANNEX “2” to “2-B”, respectively.

4.2. In determining just compensation, courts are obligated

to apply both the compensation valuation factors
enumerated by the Congress under Section 17 of the
RA 6657, and the basic formula laid down by the
DAR. In other words, in the exercise of the 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 reflect these factors. These factors and
formula provide the uniform framework and 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 ad 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. (Ramon
M. Alfonso versus Land Bank of the Philippines and
Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. Nos. 181912
and 183347, November 29, 2016)

2
5. Paragraphs 7,8,9 and 10 are admitted;

6. Paragraph 11 is denied for being baseless, unfounded and

misleading. The truth being that, it is nowhere in the decision
of the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB-Branch IV did it
state or declare that the valuation of LBP for the subject land
in the amount of Php144,785.65 is not the just compensation
payable to the petitioner;

7. Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 are neither admitted nor denied as

they are not allegations of ultimate facts;

8. Paragraph 15 is denied for lack of knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;

And by way of AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Answering respondent LBP further alleges that:

9. It re-pleads all the foregoing allegations as are hereto

pertinent, material and/or relevant;

10. The above entitled case was originated and filed before the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) – Branch IV, of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
docketed as DARAB Case No. 10328-B SNE’11 for the
preliminary administrative determination of just
compensation;

11. The proceeding therein yielded a decision originally favoring

the herein petitioner. LBP filed its Motion for Reconsideration
of the decision which was granted by the DARAB and thereby
affirming the valuation of LBP;

12. The petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before the DARAB

but opted to withdraw the same and instead file the instant
petition;

13. However, the petitioner failed to file a Notice of Filing of

Original Action with the DARAB-Branch IV attaching therein
its petition filed with this Honorable Court. Section 6, Rule
XIX of the DARAB Rules of Procedure states that:

“Xxx

Section 6. Filing of Original Action with the Special

Agrarian Court for Final Determination – The party who
disagrees with the decision of the Board/Adjudicator may
contest the same by filing an original action with Special

3
 Agrarian Court having jurisdiction over the subject property
within fifteen days (15) from his receipt of the
Board/Adjudicator’s decision.

Immediately upon filing with the SAC, the party shall file a
Notice of Filing of Original Action with the
Board/Adjudicator together with a certified true copy of the
petition filed with the SAC.

Failure to file a Notice of Filing of Original Action or to

submit a certified true copy of the petition shall render the
decision of the Board/Adjudicator final and executory.”
(emphasis supplied)

Xxx”

14. The instant case was filed before this Honorable Court on
September 03, 2018 and NO Notice of Filing of Original
Action was filed with the DARAB- Branch IV immediately
thereafter, thus making the Resolution of the Provincial
Adjudicator on the LBP’s Motion for Reconsideration final
and executory. The DISMISSAL of the instant petition shall
therefore be in order.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that the instant Petition be dismissed, or in the
alternative, the valuation of LBP as upheld by the DARAB through the
Provincial Adjudicator-Branch IV of Cabanatuan City be given judicial
imprimatur.

Such other relief as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises is likewise prayed for.

Cabanatuan City, 20th June 2019.

LBP LEGAL SERVICES GROUP

FIELD LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AREA LEGAL UNIT II-CENTRAL LUZON
Counsel for Respondent LBP

3rd Floor, LBP Building

Cor. Gen. Tinio and Gabaldon Sts. Cabanatuan City

4
 Tel No. 044-463-2703

By:

JAYBEE LYN G. LIKIGAN

Roll No. 68879
IBP NO.0999292/ 01-09-2018 Mountain Province Chapter
PTR NO. Exempt per Bar Matter 2889; 12/10/2014
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0011792
(By Authority of the Office of the Government
Corporate Counsel [OGCC] dated June 28, 2018)

Copy furnished:

Ville-Ven Farms, Inc.

RECRAA Bldg., Vitales Compound,
Sucat, Paranaque City, Metro Manila

The PARPO II
Department of Agrarian Reform,
Mabini, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Copies of the foregoing Amended Answer were served to the other

parties through a licensed courier service due to distance and lack of
office personnel to personally serve the same.

JAYBEE LYN G. LIKIGAN