SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION

[CA-G.R. CV No. 60529.  November 9, 2001.]

TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendants,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, defendant-appellant.

AMENDED DECISION

DACUDAO, J p:

Plaintiff-appellant Tomas R. Leonidas has moved for reconsideration of our Decision dated December 20, 2000 directing the remand of this case to the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo which shall forthwith appoint commissioners in accordance with Rule 67 of the Rules of Court for the purpose of determining just compensation for plaintiff-appellant's CARP — expropriated property comprising some 31.0844 hectares located at Polopina Island, at Concepcion, Iloilo. The Trial Court assigned a valuation of P20,000.00 per hectare, or the total amount of P621,688.00 for the 31.0844 hectares, with interest at 12% per annum from December 1991 until the entire amount shall have been paid.

In the present motion, movant-appellant posits that the appropriate remedy herein in not to remand the case to the Trial Court for the taking of another shot on the evidence relative to just compensation, inasmuch as the parties had already rejected such proposal in the court below prior to trial, for the reason that such referral to commissioners would become too expensive and too time-consuming, quite apart from the fact that the commissioners' report would be merely advisory in character, citing Republic of the Philippines v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 185 SCRA 572, to wit —

"The determination of just compensation for a condemned property is basically a judicial function. As the court is not bound by the commissioner's report, it may make such order or under such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of its right of condemnation, and to the defendant just compensation for the property expropriated. For that matter, this Court may even substitute its own estimate of the value gathered from the record. Hence, although the determination of just compensation appears to be a factual matter which is ordinarily outside the ambit of its jurisdiction, this Court may disturb the lower court's factual finding on appeal when there is clear error or grave abuse of discretion." (At 581).

We agree.

In its assailed judgment, the Trial Court postulated: "Since the property in question consists of a mixture of riceland, coconut planted land and ipil-ipil planted land, it is the opinion of this Court that a uniform value of P20,000.00 per hectare is a fair value for the property and all improvements thereon."

We believe that such postulation can stand reexamination in the light of the facts on record.

Prefatorily, it must be stressed that neither the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) nor the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) presented countervailing evidence against plaintiff-appellant's nearly conclusive and incontrovertible claim that the just compensation for the entire 31.0844 hectares should be P3,108,440.00, at the rate of P100,000.00 per hectare (or P 10.00 a square meter).

But plaintiff-appellant likewise testified that the land is planted with 2,500 coconut trees, all full-grown and productive; that each coconut tree can produce 25 young coconuts every three months, so much so that every three months 62,500 young coconuts can be harvested from the 2,500 coconut trees. Which means that 250,000 young coconuts can be harvested every year from the 2,500 fully grown, productive coconut trees. At that time, the price of one young coconut was P8.00, so that 250,000 young coconuts will yield an income of P2,000,000.00. Plaintiff-appellant assigned a valuation of P2,500.00 for every young coconut tree itself, after taking care of the same for 25 years. Thus, the 2,500 coconut trees should be worth some P6,250,000.00.

Plaintiff-appellant also convincingly testified that there are 100 bamboo grooves or clumps growing on the land; that each groove or clump can produce ten (10) matured poles which can fetch P55.00 a pole. Thus, 1000 matured bamboo poles could sell for P55,000.00. And as each bamboo groove or clump can easily sell for P5,000.00, the 100 bamboo grooves or clusters is worth P500,000.00.

Plaintiff-appellant furthermore declared that there are four mango trees growing on the land and that these mango trees are still productive. Each tree is valued at P5,000.00 and can produce fruits worth P3,000.00 a year, for a total of P12,000.00.

About 2.950 hectares of the land is planted to ipil-ipil trees which can produce 150 sacks of charcoal for sale. In 1996, when plaintiff-appellant took the witness stand, the average canvass price per sack of charcoal in Iloilo City was 70.00. Thus, the area planted to ipil-ipil trees could give an income of P10,000.00.

The rice-land portion of the entire landholding is 1.870 hectares, and this produces 50 sacks of palay or 50 kilos palay per sack. In 1996 a 50-kilo sack of palay costs P500.00; thus, the rice-land portion could yield an income of P25,000.00 per agricultural year.

Notably, all these claims in respect to the value of the land and its improvements were either shunted aside, or supplanted, by the Trial Court with zonal values and assessments which were not the subject of proof or evidence during the trial. But zonal valuation is merely used as basis for the proper imposition of taxes and are chiefly addressed to taxing officers for their compliance and guidance. As to tax assessments, assuming their relevancy to this case, there is here no showing that they were the result of intervention by the landowner himself, plaintiff-appellant herein (Cf.: Republic v. Vda de Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336); hence, it cannot bind plaintiff-appellant.

It is axiomatic, of course, that the value of the improvements, crops and trees are components of just compensation and must be paid to the owner thereof as well (Manila Railroad Co. v. Aguilar, 35 Phil. 118; Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney-General, et al., 41 Phil. 163; Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi, supra). Because men understandably differ in their opinions concerning the value of property, the best that courts can do is hear all witnesses which the litigants desire to present and then after carefully weighing their testimonies, arrive at a conclusion which is just and equitable (City of Manila v. Corrales, 32 Phil. 85). In connection therewith, it is generally recognized that the owner of the land is competent to testify on the value of his land (Manila Railroad Co. v. Alano, 36 Phil. 500).

After a scrupulous review of the records and guided by the jurisprudential principles heretofore cited, we believe that equity, justice, fair dealing and good conscience altogether mandate that we reconsider and set aside our decision directing the remand to the court below of this case for referral to commissioners: and in its place and stead, we decree and adjudge in the light of present-day conditions, vis-à-vis the clearly preponderant evidence on record, that plaintiff-appellant Tomas R. Leonidas shall obtain and receive from the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Department of Agrarian Reform, who are thus ordered in solidum to deliver unto the former one-half or fifty percent (50%) of all the claims that plaintiff-appellant was able to establish by his almost conclusive and incontrovertible evidence, to wit:

1.         The sum of P1,554,220.00 or P50,000.00 per hectare, by way of just compensation, for the 31.0844 hectares expropriated, with interest of 12% per annum from December 19, 1991 until fully paid;

2.         The sum of P3,385,000.00, also in concept of just compensation, for improvements on the lot in question, also with interest of 12% per annum from December 19, 1991 until fully paid; and,

3.         The sum of P1,051,000.00 for the yearly produce of fruits on the improvements on the subject lot, likewise with 12% annual interest, starting from December 19, 1991 until fully paid.

In other words, defendants-appellees are hereby solidarily condemned to pay unto the plaintiff-appellant Tomas R. Leonidas the aggregate sum of Pesos: Five Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety Thousand and Two Hundred (P5,990,200.00), which shall earn interest at 12% per annum, reckoned from December 19, 1991, until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Adefuin-De La Cruz and ^* Tria Tirona, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

*          Vice PJ Salome A. Montoya who retired on March 14, 2001.