[ G.R. NO. 167809. July 23, 2009 ] 611 Phil. 245
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. NO. 167809. July 23, 2009 ]
LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO, A. FLORENTINO R. DUMLAO, JR., STELLA DUMLAO-ATIENZA, AND NESTOR R. DUMLAO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, A. FLORENTINO R. DUMLAO, JR., RESPONDENT. R E S O L U T I O N
NACHURA, J.:
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration[1] filed by petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines on January 5, 2009 from the Decision[2] of this Court dated November 27, 2008, affirming the February 16, 2005 Decision[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA). We find that petitioner did not raise substantially new grounds to justify the reconsideration sought. Petitioner merely reiterated the arguments already passed upon by this Court. Thus, no cogent reason exists to warrant a reconsideration of this Court’s Decision. This notwithstanding, we will discuss hereunder the arguments raised by petitioner in its motion for reconsideration in order to put a closure to the controversy. Petitioner insists that the pronouncement in Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines[4] should guide the Court in settling the issue as to what constitutes just compensation for the lands covered by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27.[5] Petitioner contends that in Gabatin, this Court applied the formula prescribed in PD No. 27 and Executive Order (EO) No. 228[6] for computing the Land Value (LV) of properties covered by PD No. 27. Petitioner now insists that we use the same formula in the present case. However, petitioner’s reliance on Gabatin is clearly misplaced. It bears noting that Gabatin revolved around two issues absent in the present case: i.e., which amount is applicable in determining the Government Support Price (GSP) for palay, and whether the same shall be pegged at the time of the taking of the properties.[7] Petitioners in that case did not question the applicability of the formula prescribed in PD No. 27 and in EO No. 228, unlike respondents herein. Hence, Gabatin cannot apply to the controversy in the case at bar. Moreover, the determination of just compensation in cases of expropriation is a judicial prerogative. In Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay,[8] this Court succinctly, yet clearly, explained:
The determination of “just compensation” in eminent domain case is a judicial function. The executive department or the legislature may make the initial determinations, but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court’s findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the “just-ness” of the decreed compensation.[9]
Petitioner likewise maintains that this Court ruled that Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 is the principal law governing the determination of just compensation for lands acquired pursuant to PD No. 27[10] which, in effect, gave RA No. 6657 a retroactive effect.[11] Petitioner’s conclusion unduly stretches the Court’s pronouncement in its November 27, 2008 Decision. What we simply said was:
Due to the divergent formulae or guidelines presented by these laws,[12] a number of cases have already been brought to the Court regarding which law applies in computing just compensation for landholdings acquired under PD No. 27. On this score, the Court has repeatedly held that if just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with said law, although the property was acquired under PD No. 27.[13] (Emphasis supplied)
At the risk of being repetitive, we explain again that Section 17 of RA No. 6657[14] is made to apply only if the amount of just compensation of lands acquired through PD No. 27 remains unresolved despite the passage of RA No. 6657. It is only in such a case, and to such extent only, that this provision on the determination of just compensation in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 is made to apply retrospectively. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines is DENIED. The case is REMANDED to the trial court for final determination of just compensation long due the herein respondents. SO ORDERED. Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Quisumbing*, Carpio*, and Nazario, JJ., concur.