April 25, 1994
DAR OPINION NO. 27-94
Atty. Ricardo D. Gonzales
2nd F1oor, Martinez Building
Montilla Boulevard
Butuan City, 8600
Dear Atty. Gonzales:
This has reference to your letter requesting clarification relative to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992 (Rules and Regulations Amending the Valuation of Lands Voluntarily Offered and Compulsory Acquired). Specifically, you wish to be clarified on whether or not the amount of P4.46 which was the selling price of copra in 1989 could be used as the basis for the valuation of your clients' property under said A.O. 6 instead of P2.91 which was the selling price of copra in 1990.
We glean from your letter that the property of your clients, the Heirs of Prosperidad Rodriguez, was offered under VOS in 1989 and valued at P1,228,027.41 with the selling price (SP) of copra at P4.46; that said property was subsequently revalued under DAR A.O. 6, Series of 1992; that since under A.O. 6, selling price (SP) is defined as the "average price for the immediately preceding calendar year from the date of receipt of the claim folder by LBP", and the claim folder of your clients' property was received by LBP in 1991, the SP of P2.91 for 1990 was used in the revaluation of the property involved, with the resulting revalued price of P1,281,549.37.
Your observation is that despite the new formula under DAR A. O. 6, only a negligible 4% increase was gained by your clients because the lower SP of P2.91 was used instead of the 1989 SP of P4.46. You believe that this is not the intent of A.O. 6.
We regret that the revalued price of P1,281,549.37 cannot be reconsidered. The intent of A.O. 6 is clear and cannot be subject to interpretation in that the SP is expressly defined as the average price for the immediately preceding calendar year from the date of receipt of the claim folder by the LBP, which in this case is P2.91. Since the formula as well as the factors for the valuation are clearly defined, there is no further room for interpretation. However, your clients are not left without a remedy. Where the landowner rejects the valuation, the Provincial Adjudicator maybe requested to conduct administrative proceedings pursuant to the guidelines of the DAR Adjudication Board. Should the landowner still be unsatisfied with the DARAB decision, recourse may be had before the Special Agrarian Court which under Section 57 of RA 6657 has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners.
We hope we have clarified matters for you.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) HECTOR D. SOLIMAN
Assistant Secretary
Legal Affairs Office
Copy furnished:
Clifford C. Burkley
Head Executive Assistant
DAR, Diliman, Q.C.
RE: Doc No. 94030740
The Regional Director
DAR, Cagayan de Oro City
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
DAR, Agusan del Norte
The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
DAR, Butuan City;
Heirs of Prosperidad Rodriguez
c/o Manuel Rodriguez
Kms. 2 Zamora Street
Butuan City