GR 180803; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180803; October 23, 2009
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. J. L. JOCSON AND SONS, Respondent.
FACTS
The subject property, a 27.3808-hectare tenanted rice land owned by J. L. Jocson and Sons, was placed under Operation Land Transfer (OLT) pursuant to P.D. No. 27. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), initially valued the compensation at ₱250,563.80 based on the formula under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228. This was later increased to ₱903,637.03 with interest, which the landowner withdrew under protest. Dissatisfied, Jocson filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC), for the determination of just compensation.
The SAC fixed just compensation at ₱2,564,403.58, adopting a valuation of ₱93,657.00 per hectare. This was based on a higher government support price (GSP) of ₱300.00 per cavan of palay for 1992, which the DAR had applied to a neighboring property, instead of the ₱35.00 GSP under E.O. No. 228. LBP appealed to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 42, but the appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the issue involved a pure question of law cognizable only by the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed LBP’s petition for review on the ground that it raised a pure question of law outside its jurisdiction.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal and ruled that it had jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court clarified that appeals from decisions of the Special Agrarian Court are governed by Section 60 of R.A. No. 6657, which provides that an appeal is taken by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. This procedure suppletorily applies Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. A petition for review under Rule 42 may raise questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition simply because it ostensibly involved a pure question of law; it had the jurisdiction to review the SAC decision.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court, in the interest of justice and equity and considering the decade-long pendency of the case, resolved the substantive valuation issue. It held that for properties acquired under P.D. No. 27 but where the just compensation proceedings were initiated after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), the just compensation should be determined in accordance with Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and its implementing rules, not solely under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228. The SAC, therefore, did not err in using the factors under R.A. No. 6657, including a contemporaneous GSP, to determine fair market value at the time of payment. The petition was denied on the merits.