Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 979 views

    10 LBP Vs Lajom

    Uploaded by

    Janno Sangalang
    This case involves a dispute over the just compensation owed to Jose Lajom for portions of his land that were acquired under the government's agrarian reform program. Lajom argued that the valuation done by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was incorrect as it applied laws that had been superseded. The Supreme Court ruled that the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which took effect in 1988, should be applied retroactively to determine the just compensation since the case was still pending at that time. It also noted that taking occurs when emancipation patents are issued, so compensation should be based on the land value at that point.

    Copyright:

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

    10 LBP Vs Lajom

    Uploaded by

    Janno Sangalang
    979 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over the just compensation owed to Jose Lajom for portions of his land that were acquired under the government's agrarian reform program. Lajom argued that the valuation done by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was incorrect as it applied laws that had been superseded. The Supreme Court ruled that the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which took effect in 1988, should be applied retroactively to determine the just compensation since the case was still pending at that time. It also noted that taking occurs when emancipation patents are issued, so compensation should be based on the land value at that point.

    Original Description:

    Agra Case Digest

    Original Title

    10 LBP vs Lajom

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the just compensation owed to Jose Lajom for portions of his land that were acquired under the government's agrarian reform program. Lajom argued that the valuation done by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was incorrect as it applied laws that had been superseded. The Supreme Court ruled that the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which took effect in 1988, should be applied retroactively to determine the just compensation since the case was still pending at that time. It also noted that taking occurs when emancipation patents are issued, so compensation should be based on the land value at that point.

    Copyright:

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

    10 LBP Vs Lajom

    Uploaded by

    Janno Sangalang
    This case involves a dispute over the just compensation owed to Jose Lajom for portions of his land that were acquired under the government's agrarian reform program. Lajom argued that the valuation done by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was incorrect as it applied laws that had been superseded. The Supreme Court ruled that the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which took effect in 1988, should be applied retroactively to determine the just compensation since the case was still pending at that time. It also noted that taking occurs when emancipation patents are issued, so compensation should be based on the land value at that point.

    Copyright:

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

    10 LBP vs Lajom

    GR No. 184982 August 20, 2014


    Per: Perlas-Bernabe, J.

    Facts: Jose T. Lajom (Lajom) and his mother Vicenta Vda. De Lajom (Vda. de Lajom) were the
    registered owners of several parcels of land with an aggregate area of 27 hectares (ha.), more
    or less, located at Alua, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija (subject land).

    Sometime in 1991, a portion of the subject land (subject portion) was placed under the
    government’s Operation Land Transfer Program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27,
    otherwise known as the “Tenants Emancipation Decree,” as amended. Accordingly, the
    Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), offered
    to pay Lajom the following amounts as just compensation for the following constitutive areas of
    the subject portion:

    (a) P19,434.00 for 11.3060 has.; (b) P17,505.65 for 2.4173 has.; and (c) P80,733.45 for
    10.3949 has. (DAR valuation)

    Records show, however, that despite nonpayment of the offered just compensation, DAR
    granted twelve (12) Emancipation Patents between 1994 and 1998 in favor of the farmer-
    beneficiaries.

    Lajom rejected the DAR valuation and, instead, filed an amended petition for determination of
    just compensation and cancellation of land transfers against the DAR, the LBP, and the said
    farmer-beneficiaries

    He alleged that in computing the amount of just compensation, the DAR erroneously applied the
    provisions of PD 27 and Executive Order No. (EO) 228, Series of 1997, that have been
    repealed by Section 17 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive
    Agrarian Reform Law of 1988,” which took effect on June 15, 1988. Thus, he asserted that the
    value of the subject portion should be computed based on the provisions of RA 6657, and not of
    PD 27 and/or EO 22. Lajom stressed that the DAR valuation was arrived at without due
    process, highly prejudicial and inimical to his and his heirs’ property rights.

    The RTC rejected the DAR valuation and, using the formula Land Value = (AGP x 2.5 Hectares
    x Government Support Price [GSP] x Area) under PD 27 and EO 228, fixed the just
    compensation for the subject portion at the total amount of P3,858,912.00, with legal interest at
    the rate of 6% p.a. from 1991 until fully paid.

    The CA affirmed with modification the RTC Decision, deleting the award of 6% interest p.a. and,
    in lieu thereof, ordered LBP to pay Lajom, through his representatives and/or heirs, interest by
    way of damages at the rate of 12% p.a. on the just compensation award of P3,858,912.00 from
    March 11, 2004 until fully paid.

    Issue: Whether or not in determining the just compensation for the acquired land fromLajom, the
    provisions of RA 6657 should be applied retroactively
    Held: YES.

    Ruling:

    Case law instructs that when the agrarian reform process under PD 27 remains incomplete and
    is overtaken by RA 6657, such as when the just compensation due the landowner has yet to be
    settled, as in this case, such just compensation should be determined and the process
    concluded under RA 6657, with PD 27 and EO 228 applying only suppletorily. Hence, where RA
    6657 is sufficient, PD27 and EO 228 are superseded.

    Records show that even before Lajom filed a petition for the judicial determination of just
    compensation in May1993, RA 6657 had already taken effect on June 15, 1988. Similarly, the
    emancipation patents had been issued in favor of the farmer-beneficiaries prior to the filing of
    the said petition, and both the taking and the valuation of the subject portion occurred after the
    passage of RA 6657.Quite evidently, the matters pertaining to the correct just compensation
    award for the subject portion were still in contention at the time RA 6657 took effect; thus, as
    correctly ruled by the CA, its provisions should have been applied, with PD 27 and EO 228
    applying only suppletorily.

    As to the proper reckoning point, it is fundamental that just compensation should be determined
    at the time of the property’s taking. Taking may be deemed to occur, for instance, at the time
    emancipation patents are issued by the government.

    You might also like