Case Digest: LBP vs Honeycomb Farms Corp GR No 166259

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Case Digest: LBP vs Honeycomb Farms Corp
GR No 166259                                                                         November 12, 2012

Facts:
Honeycomb Farms Corp. (HFC) is a registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-2550 with an area of 29.0966 hectares. Through a letter HFC voluntarily offered its land to the DAR for acquisition pursuant to CARP for P 581,932.00 @ P 20,000.00 per hectare. The DAR and LBP determined an acquirable and compensable area of 27.5871 hectares while the remaining were excluded for being hilly and underdeveloped.

LBP pursuant to DAR-AO No. 6 fixed the value of the land in the amount of P 165,739.44. HFC rejected the said valuation and filed with the DARAB a petition for determination of just compensation. HFC claimed that the just compensation should be in the amount of P 25,000.00 per hectare considering its location and productivity for a total of P 725,000.00.

Pending this case, HFC filed a complaint for determination of just compensation with the RTC (SAC) praying for a P 725,000.00 just compensation plus attorneys fee of 10% of the just compensation. HFC justified the filing in the RTC (SAC) for the unreasonable delay of DARAB. LBP countered that HFC's petition was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Issue:

  1. Whether or not RTC (SAC) properly acquired jurisdiction over HFC's complaint despite pendency of the determination of just compensation with the DARAB.
  2. How much is the just compensation of the property?

Ruling:

  1. HFC correctly filed a petition for the determination of just compensation with the RTC (SAC), which has the original and exclusive jurisdiction in just compensation cases under RA 6657. The DARAB's valuation is being preliminary in nature, could not have attained finality, as only the courts cas resolve the issue of just compensation.
  2. However, the SAC committed error in applying the bais formula in determining the just compensation prescribed by DAR-AO No. 6. The case is remanded to the RTC (SAC) for determination of just compensation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Ebralinag vs The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR No 95770 95887

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR Nos. 95770 and 95887                                                     March 1, 1993 Facts: The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are elementary and high school students who were expelled from their classes by public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God". They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of th
Read more

Tax Case Digest: ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita GR No 168056

By PactaSuntServanda -
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita G.R. No. 168056                                       September 1, 2005 Facts: ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).  Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties; Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties; These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Issues: Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the
Read more

Case Digest: Estrada vs Escritor 492 SCRA 1 AM No P-02-1651

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who h
Read more