G.R. No.

143362 (June 27, 2006)

CYNTHIA V. OMADLE and ANGELITO ALISEN, Petitioners,vs.SPOUSES

WILFREDO and ROGELIA B. CASUNO, Respondents.

Facts:

Cynthia V. Omadle, petitioner, is the daughter of the late Francisco Villa,

owner of the lot 406, Pls-98 Ext., in Kalatugay, Base Camp, Maramag,
Bukidnon. Angelito Alisen, another petitioner, is Cynthia’s farm worker.
Spouses Wilfredo and Rogelia B. Casuno, respondents, were once tenants of
Francisco Villa who were cultivating a portion of said lot which was later on
awarded to them by the DAR and an Emancipation Patent and Transfer
Certificate of Title was issued.

It turned out that respondents mortgaged the property. Cynthia then

redeemed the land and caused their eviction. Consequently, respondents filed
with the Office of the Regional Adjudicator, Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB), Cagayan de Oro City, a Complaint for Recovery
of Possession and Ownership (with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction) against petitioners.

Petitioner Cynthia Omadle admitted that respondents were her father’s

tenants. However, the DAR declared the area exempt from the coverage of the
land reform program, being within the retention limits. She claimed that
respondents paid their amortization only once. They mortgaged the lot to
several persons in violation of the terms of the Certificate of the Land Transfer.
Moreover, their cause of action has prescribed because they filed their
complaint only after four years from their eviction.

In a decision dated August 24,1992, the DARAB Regional Adjudicator

dismissed the complaint. On appeal by respondents, the DARAB Central
Office reversed the decision, holding that petitioners and her siblings waived
their right to retain seven (7) hectares, allowed under Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 27, and being grantees of the Emancipation Patent, respondents
could no longer be evicted. Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for review. In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
DARA judgement. Hence, this instant petition.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that respondents are
owners of the subject land considering that they failed to pay Land Bank the
required amortizations.
2. Whether or not petitioner’s cause of action was barred by prescription
pursuant to Section 38 of R.A. 3844.

3. Whether or not respondents are disqualified for violating the terms and
conditions of their land title by not cultivating the area.

Ruling:

1. No, SC agrees with the CA that at the time the patent and the title were
issued to respondents, petitoner Omadle had already been paid her just
compensation. Granted that she has not yet been compensated, her proper
recourse is against the Land Bank, not against respondents.

2. No, Since respondents have been issued Emancipation Patent No. 042463
and TCT No. ET-5184 as early as December 18, 1987, they can no longer be
considered tenants or lessees, but owners of the subject landholding.
Obviously, Section 38 of R.A. No. 3844 on prescription finds no application to
their case.

3. No. In Pagtalunan v. Tamayol, SC held: Clearly, it is only after compliance

with the above conditions which entitles a farmer/grantee to an emancipation
patent that he acquires the vested right of absolute ownership in the
landholding – a right which has become fixed and established and is no longer
open to doubt or controversy.

G.R. No. 203242, March 12, 2019

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. LUCY GRACE AND

ELMA GLORIA FRANCO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
VICENTE GUSTILLO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS:

Francos offered the parcels of land, 12.5977 has, for sale to DAR under the
Voluntary Offer to Sell of CARP in 1995. During the summary proceedings
before DAR, the parcels of land were valued at P714, 713.78, which the
Owners did not agree with, hence this petition.

Contention of the State:

Determination of just compensation is a judicial prerogative. DAR's land
valuation is only preliminary and is not final and conclusive. The courts have
the right to review with finality the determination of just compensation.

Contention of the Petitioner:

SAC expanded the basic general formula in AO No. 5 by taking the average
between its valuation and the market value of the properties based on its
respective tax declarations. For reference, the basic general formula is:

LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)

Where: LV = Land Value

CNI = Capitalized Net Income

CS = Comparable Sales

MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration29

The 5% cash incentive under Section 19 in relation to Section 18 of RA

6657 refers to the mode of payment on the cash portion, but not to an
additional award of 5% on top of the full amount of just compensation.

ISSUE:

1. Whether SAC is wrong in not strictly using the formula in AO No. 6.

2. Whether SACs calculated amount of just compensation is correct.

3. Whether the 5% cash incentive under Section 19 of CARL refers only to

the mode of payment of the cash portion.

RULING:

1. No. Section 17 of CARL merely provides for guideposts to ascertain the

value of properties. Courts can consider other factual situations that may affect
the value of property but deviation to the basic formula made in the exercise of
judicial discretion must be "supported by a reasoned explanation grounded on
the evidence on record." A computation by a court made in "utter and blatant
disregard of the factors spelled out by law and by the implementing rules
amounts to grave abuse of discretion.
2. No. The just compensation to be paid to Franco(s) is P739, 461.43, as
computed by LBP and DAR with legal interest of 12% from the time of taking
until June 30, 2013, and legal interest of 6% from July 1, 2013 until its full
satisfaction.

LBP already factored in the property's market value as appearing in the 1996
tax declaration in computing the value of just compensation. By averaging the
price of the land, as computed based on the Department guidelines, and the
land's market value as appearing in the 1996 tax declaration, the special
agrarian court did a "double take up" of the market value per tax declaration of
the property. It destroyed the affordability of the land to the
farmer-beneficiaries

3. Yes. Section 19 must be interpreted to mean that while the 5% cash

payment is an incentive to owners-sellers to expedite the agrarian reform
program, the incentive given to these land owners should not be to the
detriment of the government. Instead of receiving only 35% in cash, the
landowner shall now receive 40% in cash and 60% in bonds.