FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 140160. January 13, 2004.]

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES , petitioner, vs . FELICIANO F.

WYCOCO , respondent.

[G.R. No. 146733. January 13, 2004.]

FELICIANO F. WYCOCO , petitioner, vs . THE HONORABLE RODRIGO S.

CASPILLO, Pairing Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial
Region, Branch 23, Cabanatuan City and the DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM , respondents.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p

Before the Court are consolidated petitions, the rst seeking the review of the February 9,
1999 Decision 1 and the September 22, 1999 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. No. SP No. 39913, which modi ed the Decision 3 of Regional Trial Court of
Cabanatuan City, Branch 23, acting as a Special Agrarian Court in Agrarian Case No. 91
(AF); and the second for mandamus to compel the said trial court to issue a writ of
execution and to direct Judge Rodrigo S. Caspillo to inhibit himself from Agrarian Case No.
91 (AF).
The undisputed antecedents show that Feliciano F. Wycoco is the registered owner of a
94.1690 hectare unirrigated and untenanted rice land, covered by Transfer Certi cate of
Title No. NT-206422 and situated in the Sitios of Ablang, Saguingan and Pinamunghilan,
Barrio of San Juan, Licab, Nueva Ecija. 4
In line with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the government,
Wycoco voluntarily offered to sell the land to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for
P14.9 million. 5 In November 1991, after the DAR's evaluation of the application and the
determination of the just compensation by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), a notice
of intention to acquire 84.5690 hectares of the property for P1,342,667.46 6 was sent to
Wycoco. The amount offered was later raised to P2,594,045.39 and, upon review, was
modi ed to P2,280,159.82. 7 The area which the DAR offered to acquire excluded idle
lands, river and road located therein. Wycoco rejected the offer, prompting the DAR to
indorse the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) for
the purpose of xing the just compensation in a summary administrative proceeding. 8 The
case was docketed as DARAB VOS Case No. 232 NE 93. Thereafter, the DARAB requested
LBP to open a trust account in the name of Wycoco and deposited the compensation
offered by DAR. 9 In the meantime, the property was distributed to farmer-beneficiaries.
On March 29, 1993, DARAB required the parties to submit their respective memoranda or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 position papers in support of their claim. 1 0 Wycoco, however, decided to forego with the
ling of the required pleadings, and instead led on April 13, 1993, the instant case for
determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City,
Branch 23, docketed as Agrarian Case No. 91 (AF). 1 1 Impleaded as party-defendants
therein were DAR and LBP.
On April 30, 1993, Wycoco led a manifestation in VOS Case No. 232 NE 93, informing the
DARAB of the pendency of Agrarian Case No. 91 (AF) with the Cabanatuan court, acting as
a special agrarian court. 1 2 On March 9, 1994, the DARAB issued an order dismissing the
case to give way to the determination of just compensation by the Cabanatuan court.
Pertinent portion thereof states:
Admittedly, this Forum is vested with the jurisdiction to conduct administrative
proceeding to determine compensation. [H]owever, a thorough perusal of
petitioner's complaint showed that he did not only raise the issue of valuation but
such other matters which are beyond the competence of the Board. Besides, the
petitioner has the option to avail the administrative remedies or bring the matter
on just compensation to the Special Agrarian Court for final determination.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this case is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED. 1 3

Meanwhile, DAR and LBP led their respective answers before the special agrarian court in
Agrarian Case No. 91 (AF), contending that the valuation of Wycoco's property was in
accordance with law and that the latter failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not
participating in the summary administrative proceedings before the DARAB which has
primary jurisdiction over determination of land valuation. 1 4
After conducting a pre-trial on October 3, 1994, the trial court issued a pre-trial order as
follows:
The parties manifested that there is no possibility of amicable settlement, neither
are they willing to admit or stipulate on facts, except those contained in the
pleadings.

The only issue left is for the determination of just compensation or correct
valuation of the land owned by the plaintiff subject of this case.
The parties then prayed to terminate the pre-trial conference.

AS PRAYED FOR, the pre-trial conference is considered terminated, and instead of

trial, the parties are allowed to submit their respective memoranda.

WHEREFORE, the parties are given twenty (20) days from today within which to
le their simultaneous memoranda, and another ten (10) days from receipt
thereof to le their Reply/Rejoinder, if any, and thereafter, this case shall be
deemed submitted for decision.
SO ORDERED. 1 5

The evidence presented by Wycoco in support of his claim were the following: (1) Transfer
Certi cate of Title No. NT-206422; (2) Notice of Land Valuation dated June 18, 1992; and
(3) letter dated July 10, 1992 rejecting the counter-offer of LBP and DAR. 1 6 On the other
hand, DAR and LBP presented the Land Valuation Worksheets. 1 7
On November 14, 1995, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Wycoco. It ruled that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 there is no need to present evidence in support of the land valuation inasmuch as it is of
public knowledge that the prevailing market value of agricultural lands sold in Licab, Nueva
Ecija is from P135,000.00 to 150,000.00 per hectare. The court thus took judicial notice
thereof and xed the compensation for the entire 94.1690 hectare land at P142,500.00
per hectare or a total of P13,428,082.00. It also awarded Wycoco actual damages for
unrealized profits plus legal interest. The dispositive portion thereof states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Ordering the defendants to pay the amount of P13,419,082.00 to plaintiff as

just compensation for the property acquired;
2. Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiff the amount of P29,663,235.00
representing the unrealized pro ts from the time of acquisition of the subject
property and the sum of P8,475,210.00 for every calendar year, until the amount
of compensation is fully paid including legal interest which had accrued thereon.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. 1 8

The DAR and the LBP led separate petitions before the Court of Appeals. The petition
brought by DAR on jurisdictional and procedural issues, docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP No.
39234, was dismissed on May 29, 1997. 1 9 The dismissal became nal and executory on
June 26, 1997. 2 0 This prompted Wycoco to le a petition for mandamus before this Court,
docketed as G.R. No. 146733, praying that the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Cabanatuan City, Branch 23, in Agrarian Case No. 91 (AF) be executed, and that Judge
Rodrigo S. Caspillo, the now presiding Judge of said court, be compelled to inhibit himself
from hearing the case.
The petition brought by LBP on both substantive and procedural grounds, docketed as CA-
G.R. No. SP No. 39913, was likewise dismissed by the Court of Appeals on February 9,
1999. 2 1 On September 22, 1999, however, the Court of Appeals modi ed its decision by
deducting from the compensation due Wycoco the amount corresponding to the 3.3672
hectare portion of the 94.1690 hectare land which was found to have been previously sold
by Wycoco to the Republic, thus —
WHEREFORE, and conformably with the above, Our decision of February 9, 1999
is hereby MODIFIED in the sense that the value corresponding to the aforesaid
3.3672 hectares and all the awards appertaining thereto in the decision a quo are
ordered deducted from the totality of the awards granted to the private
respondent. In all other respects, the decision sought to be reconsidered is hereby
RE-AFFIRMED and REITERATED.
SO ORDERED. 2 2

In its petition, LBP contended that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling:
I

THAT THE TRIAL COURT ACTING AS A SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT MAY

ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER AGRARIAN CASE NO. 91 (AF) AND RENDER
JUDGMENT THEREON WITHOUT AN INITIAL ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
OF JUST COMPENSATION BY THE DARAB PURSUANT TO SECTION 16 OF RA
6657, OVER THE TIMELY OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONER, AND IN VIOLATION
OF THE RULE ON EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND ON
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 FORUM SHOPPING; TAIEcS

II

THAT THE JUST COMPENSATION DETERMINED BY THE TRIAL COURT WAS

SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN IT WAS BASED ONLY ON
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE PREVAILING MARKET VALUE OF LAND BASED ON
THE ALLEGED PRICE OF TRANSFER OF TENURIAL RIGHTS, TAKEN WITHOUT
NOTICE AND HEARING IN VIOLATION OF RULE 129 OF THE RULES OF COURT;
III
THAT THE TRIAL COURT CAN REQUIRE THE PETITIONER TO COMPENSATE THE
PORTIONS OF RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY WHICH WERE NOT DECLARED BY
THE DAR FOR ACQUISITION, NOR SUITABLE FOR AGRICULTURE NOR CAPABLE
OF DISTRIBUTION TO FARMER BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE CARP;
IV

THAT THE TRIAL COURT CAN AWARD AS PART OF JUST COMPENSATION

LEGAL INTEREST ON THE PRINCIPAL AND ALLEGED UNREALIZED PROFITS OF
P29,663,235.00 FROM THE TIME OF ACQUISITION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
AND P8,475,210.00 FOR EVERY CALENDAR YEAR THEREAFTER, CONSIDERING
THAT THE SAME HAS NO LEGAL BASIS AND THAT THE RESPONDENT
RETAINED THE TITLE TO HIS PROPERTY DESPITE THE DAR'S NOTICE OF
ACQUISITION;

V
THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD VALIDLY GRANTED EXECUTION PENDING
APPEAL ON THE ALLEGEDLY GOOD REASON OF THE PETITIONER'S ADVANCED
AGE AND WEAK HEALTH, CONTRARY TO THE APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE
AND CONSIDERING THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT DESTITUTE. 2 3

The issues for resolution are as follows: (1) Did the Regional Trial Court, acting as Special
Agrarian Court, validly acquire jurisdiction over the instant case for determination of just
compensation? (2) Assuming that it acquired jurisdiction, was the compensation arrived at
supported by evidence? (3) Can Wycoco compel the DAR to purchase the entire land
subject of the voluntary offer to sell? (4) Were the awards of interest and damages for
unrealized profits valid?
Anent the issue of jurisdiction, the laws in point are Sections 50 and 57 of Republic Act No.
6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) which, in pertinent part, provide:
Section 50. Quasi judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). . . .
Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian Court shall have original
and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under
this Act.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special
jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision.

I n Republic v. Court of Appeals , 2 4 it was held that Special Agrarian Courts are given
original and exclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases, to wit: (1) all petitions for
the determination of just compensation; and (2) the prosecution of all criminal offenses
under R.A. No. 6657. Section 50 must be construed in harmony with Section 57 by
considering cases involving the determination of just compensation and criminal cases for
violations of R.A. No. 6657 as excepted from the plenitude of power conferred to the DAR.
Indeed, there is a reason for this distinction. The DAR, as an administrative agency, cannot
be granted jurisdiction over cases of eminent domain and over criminal cases. The
valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial function which is vested
with the Special Agrarian Courts and cannot be lodged with administrative agencies. 2 5 In
fact, Rule XIII, Section 11 of the New Rules of Procedure of the DARAB acknowledges this
power of the court, thus —
Section 11. Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just
Compensation. — The decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and
preliminary determination and payment of just compensation shall not be
appealable to the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial Courts
designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fteen (15) days from receipt of the
notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration.
(Emphasis supplied)

Under Section 1 of Executive Order No. 405, Series of 1990, the Land Bank of the
Philippines is charged with the initial responsibility of determining the value of lands
placed under land reform and the just compensation to be paid for their taking. 2 6 Through
a notice of voluntary offer to sell (VOS) submitted by the landowner, accompanied by the
required documents, the DAR evaluates the application and determines the land's
suitability for agriculture. The LBP likewise reviews the application and the supporting
documents and determines the valuation of the land. Thereafter, the DAR issues the Notice
of Land Valuation to the landowner. In both voluntary and compulsory acquisition, where
the landowner rejects the offer, the DAR opens an account in the name of the landowner
and conducts a summary administrative proceeding. If the landowner disagrees with the
valuation, the matter may be brought to the Regional Trial Court acting as a special
agrarian court. This in essence is the procedure for the determination of just
compensation. 2 7
I n Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals , 2 8 the landowner led an action for
determination of just compensation without waiting for the completion of DARAB's re-
evaluation of the land. This, notwithstanding, the Court held that the trial court properly
acquired jurisdiction because of its exclusive and original jurisdiction over determination
of just compensation, thus —
. . . It is clear from Sec. 57 that the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has
"original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners." This "original and exclusive" jurisdiction of the
RTC would be undermined if the DAR would vest in administrative o cials
original jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court
for the review of administrative decisions. Thus, although the new rules speak of
directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special
Agrarian Courts, it is clear from Sec. 57 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction
to determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 the adjudicators and to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into an
appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to Sec. 57 and therefore would be void.
Thus, direct resort to the SAC [Special Agrarian Court] by private respondent is
valid. (Emphasis supplied) 2 9
In the case at bar, therefore, the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction over Wycoco's
complaint for determination of just compensation. It must be stressed that although no
summary administrative proceeding was held before the DARAB, LBP was able to perform
its legal mandate of initially determining the value of Wycoco's land pursuant to Executive
Order No. 405, Series of 1990. What is more, DAR and LBP's conformity to the pre-trial
order which limited the issue only to the determination of just compensation estopped
them from questioning the jurisdiction of the special agrarian court. The pre-trial order
limited the issues to those not disposed of by admission or agreements; and the entry
thereof controlled the subsequent course of action. 3 0
Besides, the issue of whether Wycoco violated the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies was rendered moot and academic in view of the DARAB's dismissal 3 1 of the
administrative case to give way to and in recognition of the court's power to determine
just compensation. 3 2
In arriving at the valuation of Wycoco's land, the trial court took judicial notice of the
alleged prevailing market value of agricultural lands in Licab, Nueva Ecija without apprising
the parties of its intention to take judicial notice thereof. Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules
on Evidence provides:
Sec. 3. Judicial Notice, When Hearing Necessary . — During the trial, the court, on
its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take
judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.
After trial and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative,
or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the
parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the
case.

Inasmuch as the valuation of the property of Wycoco is the very issue in the case at bar,
the trial court should have allowed the parties to present evidence thereon instead of
practically assuming a valuation without basis. While market value may be one of the
bases of determining just compensation, the same cannot be arbitrarily arrived at without
considering the factors to be appreciated in arriving at the fair market value of the
property e.g ., the cost of acquisition, the current value of like properties, its size, shape,
location, as well as the tax declarations thereon. 3 3 Since these factors were not
considered, a remand of the case for determination of just compensation is necessary.
The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution especially where
the case involves a vast tract of land. Care must be taken that the requisite notoriety
exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the
negative. To say that a court will take judicial notice of a fact is merely another way of
saying that the usual form of evidence will be dispensed with if knowledge of the fact can
be otherwise acquired. This is because the court assumes that the matter is so notorious
that it will not be disputed. But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal
knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized
to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis
of his action. 3 4
Anent the third issue, the DAR cannot be compelled to purchase the entire property
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 voluntarily offered by Wycoco. The power to determine whether a parcel of land may come
within the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is essentially lodged
with the DAR. That Wycoco will suffer damages by the DAR's non-acquisition of the
approximately 10 hectare portion of the entire land which was found to be not suitable for
agriculture is no justification to compel DAR to acquire the whole area.
We nd Wycoco's claim for payment of interest partly meritorious. In Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals , 3 5 this Court struck down as void DAR Administrative
Circular No. 9, Series of 1990, which provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of
the deposit in cash or in bonds contemplated in Section 16 (e) of RA 6657.
"It is very explicit . . . from [Section 16 (e)] that the deposit must be made only in
'cash' or in 'LBP bonds.' Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the
deposit can be made in any other form. If it were the intention to include a 'trust
account' among the valid modes of deposit, that should have been made express,
or at least, qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly
deduced that a 'trust account' is allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in Section
16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term 'deposit.'

xxx xxx xxx

"In the present suit, the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of its powers to enact
rules and regulations when it issued Administrative Circular No. 9. There is no
basis in allowing the opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as
compensation for his property because, as heretofore discussed, Section 16(e) of
RA 6657 is very speci c that the deposit must be made only in 'cash' or in 'LBP
bonds.' In the same vein, petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. 29, 29-A and
54 because these implementing regulations can not outweigh the clear provision
of the law. Respondent court therefore did not commit any error in striking down
Administrative Circular No. 9 for being null and void. 3 6

Pursuant to the foregoing decision, DAR issued Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1996,
converting trust accounts in the name of landowners into deposit accounts. The transitory
provision thereof states —
VI. TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
All trust accounts issued pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1, S. 1993 covering
landholdings not yet transferred in the name of the Republic of the Philippines as
of July 5, 1996 shall immediately be converted to deposit accounts in the name
of the landowners concerned.

All Provincial Agrarian Reform O cers and Regional Directors are directed to
immediately inventory the claim folders referred to in the preceding paragraph,
wherever they may be found and request the LBP to establish the requisite
deposit under this Administrative Order and to issue a new certi cation to that
effect. The Original Certi cate of Trust Deposit previously issued should be
attached to the request of the DAR in order that the same may be replaced with a
new one.
All previously established Trust Deposits which served as the basis for the
transfer of the landowner's title to the Republic of the Philippines shall likewise be
converted to deposits in cash and in bonds. The Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Distribution shall coordinate with the LBP for this purpose.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 In light of the foregoing, the trust account opened by LBP in the name of Wycoco as the
mode of payment of just compensation should be converted to a deposit account. Such
conversion should be retroactive in application in order to rectify the error committed by
the DAR in opening a trust account and to grant the landowners the bene ts concomitant
to payment in cash or LBP bonds prior to the ruling of the Court in Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals . Otherwise, petitioner's right to payment of just and valid
compensation for the expropriation of his property would be violated. 3 7 The interest
earnings accruing on the deposit account of landowners would su ce to compensate
them pending payment of just compensation.
In some expropriation cases, the Court imposed an interest of 12% per annum on the just
compensation due the landowner. It must be stressed, however, that in these cases, the
imposition of interest was in the nature of damages for delay in payment which in effect
makes the obligation on the part of the government one of forbearance. 3 8 It follows that
the interest in the form of damages cannot be applied where there was prompt and valid
payment of just compensation. Conversely, where there was delay in tendering a valid
payment of just compensation, imposition of interest is in order. This is because the
replacement of the trust account with cash or LBP bonds did not ipso facto cure the lack
of compensation; for essentially, the determination of this compensation was marred by
lack of due process. 3 9
Accordingly, the just compensation due Wycoco should bear 12% interest per annum from
the time LBP opened a trust account in his name up to the time said account was actually
converted into cash and LBP bonds deposit accounts. The basis of the 12% interest would
be the just compensation that would be determined by the Special Agrarian Court upon
remand of the instant case. In the same vein, the amount determined by the Special
Agrarian Court would also be the basis of the interest income on the cash and bond
deposits due Wycoco from the time of the taking of the property up to the time of actual
payment of just compensation.
The award of actual damages for unrealized pro ts should be deleted. The amount of loss
must not only be capable of proof, but must be proven with a reasonable degree of
certainty. The claim must be premised upon competent proof or upon the best evidence
obtainable, such as receipts or other documentary proof. 4 0 None having been presented
in the instant case, the claim for unrealized profits cannot be granted.
From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that Wycoco's petition for mandamus in G.R. No.
146733 should be dismissed. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City,
Branch 23, acting as Special Agrarian Court in Agrarian Case No. 91 (AF), cannot be
enforced because there is a need to remand the case to the trial court for determination of
just compensation. Likewise, the prayer for the inhibition of Judge Rodrigo S. Caspillo in
Agrarian Case No. 91 (AF) is denied for lack of basis.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition in G.R. No. 140160 is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. Agrarian Case No. 91 (AF) is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of
Cabanatuan City, Branch 23, for the determination of just compensation. The petition for
mandamus in G.R. No. 146733 is DISMISSED. IScaAE

SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices

Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Teodoro P. Regino. (Rollo of G.R. No. 140160, p. 9.)
2. Rollo of G.R. No. 140160, p. 7.
3. Penned by Judge Feliciano V. Buenaventura. (Rollo of G.R. No. 140160, p. 149.)
4. Rollo of G.R. No. 140160, p. 258.

5. Id., p. 113.
6. Id., p. 132; Complaint, p. 125.
7. LBP's petition for review before the Court of Appeals, CA Rollo, p. 12; Land Valuation
Worksheet, pp. 71-79.
8. Rollo of G.R. No. 140160, p. 123.
9. CA Rollo, p. 80.
10. Rollo of G.R. No. 140160, p. 123.

11. Id., p. 124.

12. CA Rollo, p. 91.
13. Rollo of G.R. No. 140160, p. 140.
14. Decision, CA Rollo, p. 40.

15. Rollo of G.R. No. 140160, p. 148.

16. CA Rollo, pp. 88-90.
17. Id., p. 71-79.
18. Id., p. 46.
19. Rollo of G.R. No. 146733, p. 37; The Decision was penned by Associate Justice B.A.
Adefuin-De La Cruz, and concurred in by Associate Justices Gloria C. Paras and Ricardo
P. Galvez.
20. Rollo of G.R. No. 146733, p. 38.
21. Rollo of G.R. No. 140160, p. 9.
22. Id., p. 8.

23. Id., pp. 49-50.

24. 331 Phil. 1071 (1996).
25. Id., p. 1075, citing EPZA v. Dulay , G.R. No. L-59603, 4 April 1987, 149 SCRA 305; Sumulong
v. Guerrero, G.R. No. L-48685, 30 September 1987, 154 SCRA 461.
26. Escano, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 380 Phil. 20, 27 (2000).
27. Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990 (Amended DAR Administrative Order Nos. 12, 14
& 17, Series of 1989) Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990 was further amended by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 DAR A.O. No. 5, Series of 1992; DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993; DAR A.O. No. 2, Series of
1996; and DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1998.

28. 376 Phil. 252 (1999).

29. Id., pp. 262-263.
30. Rule 18, Section 7, 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure; Caltex Inc. v. Court of Appeals ,
G.R. No. 97753, 10 August 1992, 212 SCRA 448, 462.
31. Rollo of G.R. No. 140160, p. 140.
32. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, supra , citing Medalla Jr. v. Sayo , 191 Phil.
170 (1981).
33. B. H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 89980, 14 December 1992, 216 SCRA
584, 587.
34. State Prosecutor v. Judge Muro , A.M. No. RTJ-92-876, 19 September 1994, 236 SCRA 505,
521-522.
35. 319 Phil. 246 (1995). The Resolution denying LBP and DAR's motion for reconsideration
was promulgated on July 5, 1996 (327 Phil. 1084).
36. Id., pp. 257-258.
37. Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 9.
38. Reyes v. National Housing Authority , G.R. No. 147511, 20 January 2003, citing Republic v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146587, 2 July 2002, 383 SCRA 611.
39. Roxas & Co. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 727, 756 (1999).

40. Magat, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124221, 4 August 2000, 337 SCRA 298, 308.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com