Noble ends ignoble means

Despite the well settled rule that in expropriation of agricultural lands, the value of the property for purposes of payment of just compensation shall be determined at the time of payment not at the time of the taking, disputes still arise on this particular issue, like in this case of the heirs of Alejo (the heirs) involving a parcel of land with an area of 12.1924 hectares that they inherited and already titled in their names under TCT NT-55863.

On March 6, 2000, the Land Valuation and Landowner’s Compensation Office of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) informed the heirs that 10.347 hectares of their property have been placed under the government’s Operation Land transfer and that the assessed compensation for the land’s expropriation was P146,938.54 including compounded interest.

The LBP arrived at the amount of compensation by using the guidelines embodied in Presidential Decree (PD) 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of soil, transferring to them the ownership of the land they till, and E.O. 228 declaring full land ownership to qualified beneficiaries covered by PD 27, determining its value and mode of compensation to the landowner.

On June 6, 2000, Lina, one of the heirs, replied and told LBP that the prevailing market value of an agricultural land at that time and in that place was P300,000 to P400,000 per hectare. Thus she pegged the value of their property at P350,000 per hectare or a total of P4,267,340 which she said should be paid to her and the other heirs of Alejo.

Subsequently, the heirs filed a Petition for Just Compensation before the Special Agrarian Court, Regional Trial Court Branch 33 (SAC) praying that the just compensation for the subject property be fixed in the amount of not less than P4,267,340.

LBP however insisted that the formula under PD 27 and EO 228 coupled with the grant of compounded interest pursuant to DAR AO 13 was sufficient to arrive at a just compensation for the subject property. Moreover it insisted that that it is the value at the time of the taking — not at the time of payment — that is controlling. To buttress its claim, LBP argued that the property was legally taken by the Government upon the effectivity of PD 27 on October 21, 1972 and it was on such date that ownership of the subject land was deemed transferred from the land owner to the farmer beneficiaries. Was LBP correct?

No. The seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation. LBP’s contention that just compensation should be based on the value of the property at that time is consequently flawed.

Title to the property expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of just compensation. It is true that PD 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmers and declared that they shall “be deemed the owner” of a portion of land consisting of family sized farm. It is understood however that full payment of just compensation also had to be made first conformably with the constitutional requirement.

Under the factual circumstance of this case, the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid to the heirs has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) on June 15, 1988 before the completion of this process, the just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under said law. And under said law (Section 17) the just compensation shall be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being, real, substantial, full and ample taking into consideration the cost of the acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, sworn valuation by its owner, the tax declaration and the assessment made by the government.

Any other basis for determining the proper valuation would not only be unjust but absurd because the heirs have been deprived of the use and enjoyment of their landholding yet to date they have not yet received just compensation therefore. The noble purpose of PD 27 should not trample on the landowner’s right to be fairly and justly compensated for the value of their property.

Hence the SAC correctly determined the just compensation for the heirs’ land based on the ocular inspection of its appointed Commissioner in the sum of P200,000 per hectare or a total of P2,068,520 as it is in accordance with and guided by RA 6657 and existing jurisprudence (LBP vs. Abello et. al. G.R. 168631, April 7, 2009).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]