Case Digest: LBP vs Spouses Rosa and Pedro Costo GR No 174647

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
LBP vs Spouses Rosa and Pedro Costo 

GR No 174647                                                                December 5, 2012

Facts:
Rosa and Pedro Costo (Spouses Costo) are registered owner of a parcel of land covered by OCT No. P-6487 with an area of 9.1936 hectares. Spouses Costo voluntarily offered the said property to the DAR under CARP and its implementing rules. 7.3471 hectares was deemed qualified for acquisition, consequently LBP comuted and valued the said land in the amount of P 104,077.01. Spouses Costo then rejected the valuation and filed a determination of just compensation with the PARAD.

PARAD then recomputed the land valuation and fixed the value of the property at P 468,575.92. LBP then sought relief from SAC and filed a petition for just compensation. SAC sustained the valuation of PARAD. On appeal, the LBP contended that LBP is charged with the responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking under the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory acquisition arrangement.

Issue:
How is just compensation determined?

Ruling:
Under Sec. 17 or RA 6657, in determining just compensation, the following must be considered:
  1. the acquisition cost of the land;
  2. the current value of the properties;
  3. its nature, actual use, and income;
  4. the sworn valuation by the owner;
  5. the tax declarations;
  6. the assessment may by the government assessors;
  7. the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and farmworkers, and by the government to the property; and
  8. non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land, in any.

In a previous case the court ruled that the factors enumerated under Sec. 17 of RA 6657 has already been translated into a basic formula (LBP vs Celada,), to wit:
LV = Land Value;
CNI = Capitalized Net Income;
CS = Comparable Sales;
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration.

If the three factors are present, the basic formula is LV = (CN*0.6) + (CS*0.3) + (MV*0.1), otherwise the following shall govern:
CS is not present: LV = (CNI*0.9) + (MV*0.1);
CNI is not present: LV = (CS*0.9) = (MV*0.1);
Both CNI and CS are not present: LV = MV*2
But, in no case shall the value of idle land using formula MV*2 exceed the lowest value of land within the same estate under consideration or within the same barangay or municipality approved by LBP within 1 year from receipt of claimholder.

After the evaluation of evidence on both parties, the court decided in favor of respondent affirming the decision of the lower courts.

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