G.R. No.

175726

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner

vs
HEIRS of ANTONIO MARCOS, SR., namely: ANITA M. RUBIO, LOLITA M. PELINO, ANTONIO MARCOS, JR. and
RAMIRO D. MARCOS, Respondents

Facts:

On April 3, 1995 the heirs of Antonio Marcos, Sr. offered to sell two parcels of land to the Republic of the
Philippines pursuant to R.A. 6657.

On July 10, 1996, Landbank of the Philippines, the petitioner, valued the lands at 195,603.70 and 79,096.26.

A year thereafter, Ramiro (authorized representative of the heirs) filed a Landowner’s Reply Notice of Land
Valuation and Acquisition Form. The form contained the acceptance of the respondents to the valuation. On that
same date, the DAR Regional Director sent a memo requesting the preparation of deed of transfer and payment
based on LBP’s valuation.

Pending payment, the DAR brought the matter to the DARAB, requesting that summary admin. proceeding be made
to determine the just compensation. The Provincial Adjudicator rendered the decisions fixing the valuation of land
at 446,786.03 for the 14.9274 hectares and 283,302.10 for the 9.4653 hectares.

LBP disagreed with the decision and filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation with the RTC-
SAC. RTC then rendered a decision in favor of the respondents. LBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was
denied and thereafter appealed to the CA. CA affirmed the decision of RTC. Hence, petitioner filed a petition for
review on certiorari.

Issue:

Can the CA or SAC disregard the valuation factors provided in section 17 of R.A. 6657?

Can DARAB revoke the contract between Republic of the Philippines & the heirs of Antonio involving the
properties?

Held:

The property was acquired pursuant to R.A. 6657, hence sec. 17 is applicable. The decisions made by the Provincial
Adjudicator and the RTC-SAC did not clearly explain why the formula as laid down was not applied. Both of them
has jurisdiction in the determination of just compensation, however, a clear explanation is needed when their
decision departed from the factors and formulas provided by law.

As to petitioner’s assertion on the revocation of the contract between them and the Republic, the taking of the
property as an exercise of the State’s police power and power of eminent domain does not give rise to a contractual
obligation. The transaction is not in an ordinary course of business between a buyer and a seller. Since the RTC-
SAC could make the final determination of the just compensation, the acceptance made by the respondent on the
petitioner’s valuation cannot be considered as consummated contract.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The civil case is remanded to the RTC for
trial on merits with dispatch. The trial judge is directed to observe strictly the procedures in determining the proper
valuation of the subject property.

1. What was the valuation used?

The PARAD valued the property based on the bona fide sales transaction of nearby places in determining the
market value of like properties

2. How did the court reckon the payment of just compensation, was it at the time the case was filed or was it on the
taking?

3. How did the court now determine the just compensation?

4. Decide. In the particular case, who do you think lost?