December 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > December 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 175175 : December 15, 2008] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO CRUZ, ET AL :
[G.R. No. 175175 : December 15, 2008]
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO CRUZ, ET AL
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 15 December 2008:
G.R. No. 175175 [Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz, et al] - This treats of petitioner Land Bank's motion for reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated 29 September 2008, which dismissed the petition for review on certiorari and ordered the remand of the case to the Special Agrarian Court for the fixing of just compensation strictly in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998.
In the instant motion for reconsideration, petitioner reiterates its position that just compensation for the subject agricultural lands acquired for the agrarian reform program should be based on the formula set forth in Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 and Executive Order (E.O.) No. 228 because they were acquired pursuant to P.D. No. 27. Petitioner relies on the more recent pronouncement in Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines [1] in claiming that the values at the time of taking should be used determining just compensation.
Gabatin is inapplicable because the factual milieu therein is different from that of the instant case. Here, while the subject lands were acquired under P.D. No. 27, which became effective on 21 October 1972, the process of agrarian reform remained incomplete, that is, the payment of just compensation has yet to be made even after the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657. In view of the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 pending the determination of just compensation, the parameters set forth in R.A. No. 6657, as implemented in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998 should be used in fixing just compensation. To peg the prices at the 1972 values when P.D. No. 27 became operative would be inequitable to the landowner who has been deprived of the use of the subject lands without the being compensated for the long period of deprivation.
In any case, the motion contains a mere reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to the Court and found to be without merit. Petitioner fails to raise any new and substantial arguments, and no cogent reason exists to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's Resolution. It would be a useless ritual for the Court to reiterate itself.
In view of the foregoing, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.
�G.R. No. 175175 [Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz, et al] - This treats of petitioner Land Bank's motion for reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated 29 September 2008, which dismissed the petition for review on certiorari and ordered the remand of the case to the Special Agrarian Court for the fixing of just compensation strictly in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998.
In the instant motion for reconsideration, petitioner reiterates its position that just compensation for the subject agricultural lands acquired for the agrarian reform program should be based on the formula set forth in Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 and Executive Order (E.O.) No. 228 because they were acquired pursuant to P.D. No. 27. Petitioner relies on the more recent pronouncement in Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines [1] in claiming that the values at the time of taking should be used determining just compensation.
Gabatin is inapplicable because the factual milieu therein is different from that of the instant case. Here, while the subject lands were acquired under P.D. No. 27, which became effective on 21 October 1972, the process of agrarian reform remained incomplete, that is, the payment of just compensation has yet to be made even after the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657. In view of the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 pending the determination of just compensation, the parameters set forth in R.A. No. 6657, as implemented in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998 should be used in fixing just compensation. To peg the prices at the 1972 values when P.D. No. 27 became operative would be inequitable to the landowner who has been deprived of the use of the subject lands without the being compensated for the long period of deprivation.
In any case, the motion contains a mere reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to the Court and found to be without merit. Petitioner fails to raise any new and substantial arguments, and no cogent reason exists to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's Resolution. It would be a useless ritual for the Court to reiterate itself.
In view of the foregoing, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] 486 Phil. 366 (2004).
