rtc-special agrarian court must adopt the proper procedure in determining just compensation

Here, the RTC failed to observe the basic rules of procedure and the fundamental requirements in determining just compensation for the property. Firstly, it dispensed with the hearing and merely ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda. Such action is grossly erroneous since the determination of just compensation involves the examination of the following factors specified in Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended:

1. the cost of the acquisition of the land;

2. the current value of like properties;

3. its nature, actual use and income;

4. the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations;

5. the assessment made by government assessors;

6. the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the government to the property, and;

7. the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land, if any.

Obviously, these factors involve factual matters which can be established only during a hearing wherein the contending parties present their respective evidence. In fact, to underscore the intricate nature of determining the valuation of the land, Section 58 of the same law even authorizes the Special Agrarian Courts to appoint commissioners for such purpose. [Emphasis supplied].

X X X 

 In determining the valuation of the subject property, the RTC-SAC should consider the factors provided under Section 17²⁵ of RA 6657 mentioned above. We fully explained the current doctrine in the proper determination of just compensation in Lee v. Land Bank of the Philippines²⁶ using the formula provided in AO No. 5-98.²⁷ Furthermore, upon its own initiative, or at the instance of any of the parties, the RTC-SAC may appoint one or more commissioners to examine, investigate and ascertain facts relevant to the dispute pursuant to Section 58²⁸ of RA 6657.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 160394 : November 27, 2009]

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. AGUSTIN C. DIZON, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

the party who seeks to challenge the foreclosure proceedings has the burden of evidence to rebut the same

At the outset, it bears emphasis that foreclosure proceedings have in their favor the presumption of regularity and the party who seeks to challenge the proceedings has the burden of evidence to rebut the same.¹⁵  In this case, respondent failed to prove that Prudential Bank has not complied with the notice requirement of the law.

Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Act No. 3135 laid down the procedure regarding foreclosure sale:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Sec. 2. Said sale cannot be made legally outside of the province in which the property sold is situated; and in case the place within said province in which the sale is to be made is subject to stipulation, such sale shall be made in said place or in the municipal building of the municipality in which the property or part thereof is situated.

Sec. 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of the sale for not less than twenty days in at least three public places of the municipality or city where the property is situated, and if such property is worth more than four hundred pesos, such notice shall also be published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city.

Sec. 4. The sale shall be made at public auction, between the hours of nine in the morning and four in the afternoon; and shall be under the direction of the sheriff of the province, the justice or auxiliary justice of the peace of the municipality in which such sale has to be made, or a notary public of said municipality, who shall be entitled to collect a fee of five pesos each day of actual work performed, in addition to his expenses.

In Philippine National Bank v. Maraya, Jr.,¹⁶ we elucidated that one of the most important requirements of Act No. 3135 is that the notice of the time and place of sale shall be given. If the sheriff acts without notice, or at a time and place other than that designated in the notice, the sheriff acts without warrant of law.¹⁷  In this case, the property sold in the public auction is located in Quezon City and the foreclosure sale proceeded as scheduled at 10:00 o’clock in the morning on 26 August 1996 at the Hall of Justice in Quezon City with Prudential Bank as the winning bidder, registering the highest bid of P396,000.00.

In Century Savings Bank v. Samonte¹⁸ citing Olizon v. Court of Appeals,¹⁹ the Court reiterated the purpose of the rule on notice, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of the nature and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place and terms of the sale. Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent a sacrifice of the property. If these objects are attained, immaterial errors and mistakes will not affect the sufficiency of the notice; but if mistakes or omissions occur in the notices of sale, which are calculated to deter or mislead bidders, to depreciate the value of the property, or to prevent it from bringing a fair price, such mistakes or omissions will be fatal to the validity of the notice, and also to the sale made pursuant thereto.²⁰

The mistakes and omissions referred to in the above-cited ruling which would invalidate notice pertain to those which: 1) are calculated to deter or mislead bidders, 2) to depreciate the value of the property, or 3) to prevent it from bringing a fair price.

 

 BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (FORMERLY PRUDENTIAL BANK), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DAVID M. CASTRO AND CONSUELO B. CASTRO, Respondents,FIRST DIVISION/G.R. No. 195272, January 14, 2015