Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 105 views

    Lubrica Vs Land Bank

    Uploaded by

    Christopher Advincula
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals decision was not in line with previous Supreme Court rulings. While the landowners' property was seized in 1972 under land reform, they had not received just compensation, which is required before private property can be taken. It would be inequitable to value the land based on 1972 prices since the government and farmer beneficiaries had used the land in the interim. The landowners were effectively deprived of their property and income from it without compensation. The Supreme Court reinstated the preliminary valuation by the land reform agency as the deposit amount owed to the landowners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lubrica Vs Land Bank

    Uploaded by

    Christopher Advincula
    105 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals decision was not in line with previous Supreme Court rulings. While the landowners' property was seized in 1972 under land reform, they had not received just compensation, which is required before private property can be taken. It would be inequitable to value the land based on 1972 prices since the government and farmer beneficiaries had used the land in the interim. The landowners were effectively deprived of their property and income from it without compensation. The Supreme Court reinstated the preliminary valuation by the land reform agency as the deposit amount owed to the landowners.

    Original Title

    LUBRICA-VS-LAND-BANK

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals decision was not in line with previous Supreme Court rulings. While the landowners' property was seized in 1972 under land reform, they had not received just compensation, which is required before private property can be taken. It would be inequitable to value the land based on 1972 prices since the government and farmer beneficiaries had used the land in the interim. The landowners were effectively deprived of their property and income from it without compensation. The Supreme Court reinstated the preliminary valuation by the land reform agency as the deposit amount owed to the landowners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    105 views2 pages

    Lubrica Vs Land Bank

    Uploaded by

    Christopher Advincula
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals decision was not in line with previous Supreme Court rulings. While the landowners' property was seized in 1972 under land reform, they had not received just compensation, which is required before private property can be taken. It would be inequitable to value the land based on 1972 prices since the government and farmer beneficiaries had used the land in the interim. The landowners were effectively deprived of their property and income from it without compensation. The Supreme Court reinstated the preliminary valuation by the land reform agency as the deposit amount owed to the landowners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    LUBRICA VS LAND BANK

    G.R. No. 170220, Nov. 20, 2006,


    507 SCRA 415 (2006)

    JURISPRUDENCE:
    In determining just compensation, the cost of the acquisition of the land, the current value of like
    properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations,
    and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered.

    Facts:

    Petitioners own parcels of agricultural lands in Mindoro Occidental which were placed
    under land reform pursuant to PD 27. Thereafter subdivided and distributed to farmer
    beneficiaries.

    Petitioners rejected Land Bank’s valuation of their properties, hence the PARAD
    conducted summary proceedings for determination of just compensation and PARAD
    fixed the preliminary just compensation at P51,800,286.43 for the 311.7682 hectares
    (TCT No. T-31) and P21,608,215.28 for the 128.7161 hectares. However, LBP not
    satisfied with the valuation filed for judicial determination of just compensation before
    RTC. RTC ordered LBP to deposit the amounts provisionally determined by the PARAD
    as there is no law which prohibits LBP to make a deposit pending the fixing of the final
    amount of just compensation. On June 17, 2003, LBP filed with the Court of Appeals
    and issued 60 day Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). On May 26, 2004, The CA
    rendered decision in favor of the petitioner and the instant petition is denied. However,
    LBP moved for reconsideration, which was granted, and the May 26, 2004 decision was
    hereby VACATED, ABANDONED. The CA, in its Amended Decision, held that the
    immediate deposit of the preliminary value of the expropriated properties is improper
    because it was erroneously computed. Citing Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines,

    Issue:

    Whether or not the court a quo has decided the case in a way not in accord with the
    latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs.
    Hon. Eli G.C. Natividad, et al., G.R. No. 127198, prom. May 16, 2005

    Held:

    YES. The Natividad case reiterated the Court’s ruling in Office of the President v. Court
    of Appeals that the expropriation of the landholding did not take place on the effectivity
    of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972 but seizure would take effect on the payment of just
    compensation judicially determined.

    In the instant case, petitioners were deprived of their properties in 1972 but have yet to
    receive the just compensation therefor. The parcels of land were already subdivided
    and distributed to the farmer-beneficiaries thereby immediately depriving petitioners of
    their use. Under the circumstances, it would be highly inequitable on the part of the
    petitioners to compute the just compensation using the values at the time of the taking
    in 1972, and not at the time of the payment, considering that the government and the
    farmer-beneficiaries have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof
    have not yet been transferred in their names. Petitioners were deprived of their
    properties without payment of just compensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite
    before the property can be taken away from its owners. The transfer of possession and
    ownership of the land to the government are conditioned upon the receipt by the
    landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the compensation
    with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner.
    Hence, petition is hereby GRANTED. The amended decision of CA is REVERSED and
    SET ASIDE.

    Roderico U Bongoyan
    JD-2

    You might also like