Republic of the Philippines

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

Regional Trial Court
Branch 23
Cabanatuan City

VILLE-VEN FARMS, INC.,

Represented by its Attorney-in-fact,
ROSENDO HERRERA,

Petitioner,

-versus-
Agrarian Case No. 211-AF
For: Just
Compensation

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM and LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
Respondents.
X----------------------------------------------X

AMENDED ANSWER
with
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Respondent LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP for

brevity), by undersigned counsel and to this Honorable
Court, answering the Petition, respectfully alleges that:

1. Paragraph 1 is denied for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth thereof;

2. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are admitted;

3. Paragraph 5 is admitted as the regards the

Memorandum of Valuation but denies the rest for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth thereof;

4. Paragraph 6 is admitted as regards the rejection

of the petitioner of the LBP’s valuation but denies
the rest for LBP had in fact faithfully complied
with the applicable DAR Administrative Order and

1
 issuances relative to the computation of the
value of the subject landholding, thus it cannot
be gainsaid that the valuation arrived at by LBP is
unjust and unfair in the realm of agrarian reform;

4.1 LBP computed land value using DAR AO 2,

Series of 2009, which contains the formula
promulgated by the DAR after due regard to
all the factors enumerated under Section 17
of RA 6657 as amended. The value of the
subject property is One Hundred Forty
Four Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty
Five Pesos and 65/100 (Php144.785.65)
for the acquired 8.5739 hectares using the
relevant formula: LV = (0.90 x ZVI) + (0.10 x
MV), under DAR Administrative Order No. 2,
Series of 2009, computed as follows:

For Uncultivated:
LV = (0.90 x ZVI) + (0.10 x MV)
= (0.90 x Php14,000.00) + (0.10 x
Php42,867.86)
= Php12,600.00 + Php4,286.79
= Php16,886.79/hectare
= Php16,886.79 x 8.5739 hectares
=Php144,785.65

Attached hereto are the certified true copies of the

Field Investigation Report and the Land Valuation
Worksheet as ANNEX “1” to “1-F“ and ANNEX “2” to
“2-B”, respectively.

4.2. In determining just compensation, courts

are obligated to apply both the
compensation valuation factors
enumerated by the Congress under Section
17 of the RA 6657, and the basic formula
laid down by the DAR. In other words, in
the exercise of the Court’s essentially
judicial function of determining just
compensation, the RTC-SACs are not
granted unlimited discretion and must
consider and apply the R.A. No. 6657,
enumerated factors and the DAR formula
that reflect these factors. These factors
and formula provide the uniform
framework and structure for the
computation of the just compensation for a

2
 property subject to agrarian reform. This
uniform system will ensure that they do not
arbitrarily fix an amount that is absurd,
baseless ad even contradictory to the
objectives of our agrarian reform laws as
just compensation. This system will
likewise ensure that the just compensation
fixed represents, at the very least, a close
approximation of the full and real value of
the property taken that is fair and
equitable for both the farmer-beneficiaries
and the landowner. (Ramon M. Alfonso
versus Land Bank of the Philippines and
Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. Nos.
181912 and 183347, November 29, 2016)

5. Paragraphs 7,8,9 and 10 are admitted;

6. Paragraph 11 is denied for being baseless,

unfounded and misleading. The truth being that,
it is nowhere in the decision of the Provincial
Adjudicator of the DARAB-Branch IV did it state or
declare that the valuation of LBP for the subject
land in the amount of Php144,785.65 is not the
just compensation payable to the petitioner;

7. Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 are neither admitted

nor denied as they are not allegations of ultimate
facts;

8. Paragraph 15 is denied for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth thereof;

And by way of AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Answering respondent LBP further alleges that:

9. It re-pleads all the foregoing allegations as are

hereto pertinent, material and/or relevant;

10. The above entitled case was originated and filed

before the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) – Branch IV, of
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija docketed as DARAB
Case No. 10328-B SNE’11 for the preliminary
administrative determination of just
compensation;

3
11. The proceeding therein yielded a decision
originally favoring the herein petitioner. LBP filed
its Motion for Reconsideration of the decision
which was granted by the DARAB and thereby
affirming the valuation of LBP;

12. The petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before the

DARAB but opted to withdraw the same and
instead file the instant petition;

13. However, the petitioner failed to file a Notice of

Filing of Original Action with the DARAB-Branch IV
attaching therein its petition filed with this
Honorable Court. Section 6, Rule XIX of the
DARAB Rules of Procedure states that:

“Xxx

Section 6. Filing of Original Action with the

Special Agrarian Court for Final Determination –
The party who disagrees with the decision of
the Board/Adjudicator may contest the same by
filing an original action with Special Agrarian
Court having jurisdiction over the subject
property within fifteen days (15) from his
receipt of the Board/Adjudicator’s decision.

Immediately upon filing with the SAC, the party

shall file a Notice of Filing of Original Action with
the Board/Adjudicator together with a certified
true copy of the petition filed with the SAC.

Failure to file a Notice of Filing of Original

Action or to submit a certified true copy of
the petition shall render the decision of
the Board/Adjudicator final and
executory.” (emphasis supplied)

Xxx”

14. The instant case was filed before this Honorable

Court on September 03, 2018 and NO Notice of
Filing of Original Action was filed with the DARAB-
Branch IV immediately thereafter, thus making
the Resolution of the Provincial Adjudicator on
the LBP’s Motion for Reconsideration final and

4
 executory. The DISMISSAL of the instant petition
shall therefore be in order.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the instant Petition be
dismissed, or in the alternative, the valuation of LBP as
upheld by the DARAB through the Provincial Adjudicator-
Branch IV of Cabanatuan City be given judicial imprimatur.

Such other relief as may be deemed just and

equitable under the premises is likewise prayed for.

Cabanatuan City, 20th June 2019.

LBP LEGAL SERVICES GROUP

FIELD LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AREA LEGAL UNIT II-CENTRAL LUZON
Counsel for Respondent LBP

3rd Floor, LBP Building

Cor. Gen. Tinio and Gabaldon Sts. Cabanatuan City
Tel No. 044-463-2703

By:

JAYBEE LYN G. LIKIGAN

Roll No. 68879
IBP NO.0999292/ 01-09-2018 Mountain Province Chapter
PTR NO. Exempt per Bar Matter 2889; 12/10/2014
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0011792
(By Authority of the Office of the Government
Corporate Counsel [OGCC] dated June 28, 2018)

Copy furnished:

Ville-Ven Farms, Inc.

RECRAA Bldg., Vitales Compound,
Sucat, Paranaque City, Metro Manila

5
The PARPO II
Department of Agrarian Reform,
Mabini, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)

Copies of the foregoing Amended Answer were

served to the other parties through a licensed courier
service due to distance and lack of office personnel to
personally serve the same.

JAYBEE LYN G. LIKIGAN