Case Digest: Land Bank vs Colarina G.R. No. 176410, Sep. 1, 2010,629 SCRA 614 (2010)

Land Bank
vs
Colarina
G.R. No. 176410, Sep. 1, 2010,
629 SCRA 614 (2010)

Facts:
Respondent  Colarina manifested his voluntary offer to his sell three (3) parcels of agricultural land to the DAR for coverage under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
Disappointed with the low valuation by petitioner and the DAR, respondent filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Legazpi, Albay, for the judicial determination of just compensation.
During pre-trial, LBP manifested that the subject properties may be reassessed and revaluated based on the new guidelines set forth in DAR A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994.
The respondent, to support his valuation of the subject properties, presented in evidence his own testimony and that of  Oliva), then Assistant Provincial Assessor of Camarines Sur and President of the Camarines Chapter of the National Real Estate Association.
Thereafter, the SAC rendered a decision reconciling the conflicting evidence of the parties. The SAC followed the formula of the LBP and its land use classification of the subject properties; the appraisal report on the valuation thereof.

Both parties appealed to the CA. The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the SAC

Issue:
Whether or not the lower courts’ computation of just compensation for the subject properties is correct.

Held:
No. The factors for the determination of just compensation in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, and consequently converted into a formula in A.O. No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994, is mandatory. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Sps. Banal, as affirmed by our subsequent rulings, did not equivocate.
We note that A.O. No. 6, Series of 1992 (as amended by A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994) has been superseded by A.O. No. 5, Series of 1998. However, A.O. No. 5, Series of 1998, is not applicable to the present case as the subject properties were assessed and valued prior to its effectivity.
However, the RTC, as well as the CA, was gravely mistaken in using respondent’s valuation of the properties contained in Oliva’s appraisal report. Oliva’s appraisal report did not attach pertinent documents thereto, considering that, as he had testified, he used the productivity approach.
Thus, replacing the valuation of the subject properties pursuant to the determination of petitioner where the LV was pegged using the formula {CNI x 90%} + {MV x 2}, we arrive at a different amount.