LBP vs.

Natividad

- the case was all about the Respondents ( DAR and LBP), were ordered to pay the private respondent the
amount of P30. oo per square meter as just compensation.
- Private respondents filed a petition before the trial court for the determination of just
compensation for their agricultural lands situated in Arayat, Pampanga
- Here, LBP alleged that:
1. Should have sought the reconsideration of the DARs valuation of their properties.
2. Private respondents thus failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they filed a
petition for the determination of just compensation directly with the trial court.
3. just compensation should be based on the value of the property as of that time (effectivity of P. D.
27 and not at the time of possession in 1993 .

- are mere guidelines in the determination of just compensation, and in relying on private respondents
evidence of the valuation of the properties at the time of possession in 1993 and not on Land Banks
evidence of the value thereof as of the time of acquisition in 1972.

- Land Banks contention is not entirely true

1. the trial did not err in taking cognizance of the case as the determination of just compensation is a
function addressed to the courts of justice.
2. Private respondents did write a letter to the DAR Secretary
(objecting to the land valuation summary submitted by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office
and requesting a conference for the purpose of fixing just compensation.
3. The letter, however, was left unanswered prompting private respondents to file a petition directly
with the trial court.

4.. We declared that there is nothing contradictory between the DARs primary jurisdiction to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters , just compensation

5. The first refers to administrative proceedings, while the second refers to judicial proceedings.

6. Well settled principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR to determine
in a preliminary manner the just compensation for the lands taken under the agrarian reform
program, but such determination is subject to challenge before the courts.

7. Seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take
effect on the payment of just compensation.

8. Just compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO

228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent
of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full
and ample

Lubrica vs. LBP

- the case was all about the respondent, LBP, directing to deposit the provisional compensation as
determined by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator to the Petitioners who were deprived of their
properties without payment of just compensation
- Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee of Federico C. Suntay over certain parcels of agricultural
land
- Parcel of land owned by the petitioner was under the land reform program
- Thereafter, subdivided and distributed to farmer beneficiaries

- Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties,

- Hence the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted summary
administrative proceedings for determination of just compensation.

- Not satisfied with the valuation, LBP filed judicial determination of Just compensation to RTC, which
ordered the LBP to deposit the provisional compensation as determined by the PARAD in cash and bonds

- Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly ordered LBP to deposit the amounts provisionally
determined by the PARAD as there is no law which prohibits LBP to make a deposit pending the fixing of
the final amount of just compensation

- Petitioners insist that the determination of just compensation should be based on the value of the
expropriated properties at the time of payment.

- Respondent LBP, on the other hand, claims that the value of the realties should be computed as of
October 21, 1972 when P.D. No. 27 took effect.

Natividad case reiterated:

that the expropriation of the landholding did not take place on the effectivity of P.D. No. 27 on October 21,
1972 but seizure would take effect on the payment of just compensation judicially determined.

In the instant case, petitioners were deprived of their properties in 1972 but have yet to receive the just
compensation, parcels of land were already subdivided

- it would be highly inequitable on the part of the petitioners to compute the just compensation using the
values at the time of the taking in 1972, and not at the time of the payment,

- Petitioners were deprived of their properties without payment of just compensation which,

- Section 18 of R.A. No. 6657 mandates that the LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as
may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP or as may be finally determined by the
court as the just compensation for the land. In determining just compensation, the cost of the acquisition of
the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the
owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered. The
social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the government to the
property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on
the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.