Land Bank of the Philippines v. St. Louis Realty Corp.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 209498. May 14, 2021.]

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.ST. LOUIS REALTY CORPORATION, respondent.

[G.R. No. 209503. May 14, 2021.]

ST. LOUIS REALTY CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

[G.R. No. 217895. May 14, 2021.]

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.ST. LOUIS REALTY CORPORATION, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 14, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 209498 (Land Bank of the Philippines, Petitioner,v. St. Louis Realty Corporation, Respondent); G.R. 209503 (St. Louis Realty Corporation, Petitioner,v. Land Bank of the Philippines, Respondent); and G.R. No. 217895 (Land Bank of the Philippines, Petitioner,v. St. Louis Realty Corporation, Respondent.) — Before Us are consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari1 emanating from the same factual backdrop in appeal of the Decision 2 dated 20 June 2011 and Joint Order 3 dated 19 October 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77 of San Mateo, Rizal in Agrarian Case No. A-04-010.

More particularly, the consolidated Petitions assail and seek to set aside the following issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA) in the different proceedings brought before it, whereby the corresponding consolidated Petitions herein sprung, to wit:

1. In G.R. Nos. 209498 4 and 209503, 5 the Decision dated 25 January 2013 6 and the Resolution dated 03 October 2013 7 in CA-G.R. SP No. 122384, which stemmed from Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)'s appeal of the RTC Decision.

2. In G.R. No. 217895, 8 the Decision dated 05 January 2015 9 and Resolution dated 24 April 2015 10 in CA-G.R. SP No. 122489, which arose from St. Louis Realty Corporation (SLRC)'s appeal of said RTC Decision.

Antecedents

SLRC is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated at Bagumbayan, Teresa, Rizal, covered by TCT No. 219328 (M-35946) with a total land area of 31,809 square meters. Said property was subjected by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) on 14 August 1989, for a value of Php77,136.86 per Notice of Land Valuation issued on 24 September 1992. SLRC rejected the offer prompting the LBP to open a trust account in SLRC's name and deposited therein said amount on 10 February 1993. Thereafter, DAR caused the cancellation of TCT No. 219328 (M-35946) in SLRC's name and transferred the same in favor of CARP's beneficiary, namely, Catalina D. Llaga, resulting to the issuance of a new certificate of title, TCT No. M-0956 in the name of the latter on 21 November 1994. Unable to agree on what is the rightful amount of the subject property, the DAR then endorsed the case to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) for the fixing of just compensation. However, even pending the summary proceeding, SLRC instituted a complaint before the RTC of San Mateo pursuant to Section 57 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657 11 on 20 December 2004, which was docketed as A-04-010. 12

For its part, DAR contended that LBP is empowered by Executive Order No. (EO) 405 13 issued on 14 June 1990 to determine the land valuation and compensation of all lands subjected under CARP and such determination is binding and should be accorded respect and finality. On the other hand, LBP insisted that it is an indispensable party to the case by virtue of EO 405. 14

On 20 June 2011, a Decision was rendered in favor of SLRC, fixing the just compensation of the subject property in the amount of Php299,748.18, 15 pursuant to the formula used in LBP v. Colarina. 16

Aggrieved, both SLRC and LBP moved for reconsideration, but to no avail. 17 Dissatisfied, both parties filed an appeal with the CA. 18 LBP's Petition for Review was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 122384 while SLRC's Petition for Review was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 122489. 19

Ruling of the CA

G.R. Nos. 209498 and 209503 (CA-G.R. SP No. 122384)

On 25 January 2013, the CA dismissed the appeal, viz.:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 20, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77 of San Mateo, Rizal is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 20

In finding LBP's appeal to be bereft of merit, the CA found that the RTC correctly arrived at the just compensation by considering several factors enumerated in Section 17 of RA 6657 and the formula outlined in DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 5, Series of 1998. 21 It further underlined that the RTC aptly applied the formula in LBP v. Colarina. As such, the computation was based on established principles and supported by concrete evidence on record. 22

The CA denied the parties' Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution dated 03 October 2013. 23 Hence, the Petitions for Review on Certiorari filed by both LBP and SLRC.

G.R. No. 217895 (CA-G.R. SP No. 122489)

On 05 January 2015, the CA granted SLRC's appeal, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated June 20, 2011 and Joint Order dated October 19, 2011 are SET ASIDE. Just compensation for private respondents' taking of petitioner's property is hereby fixed at One Hundred Sixty ([Php]160.00) Pesos per square meter.

SO ORDERED. 24

At the outset, the CA noted that LBP did not refute SLRC's accusation that LBP had submitted a different tax declaration in its formal offer of evidence from the one subject of stipulation during the Pre-trial Conference. On this premise alone, the CA pronounced that the assailed RTC orders must be set aside. 25

Further, the CA ruled that the BIR zonal valuation of Php160.00 per square meter is more equitable as just compensation pursuant to Section 4 (a) of RA 8974, which provides that the just compensation shall be "One Hundred Percent (100%) of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)." 26

LBP sought a reconsideration of the CA's ruling but the same was denied on the Resolution dated 24 April 2015. 27 Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Issue

Essentially, the issue is whether or not the lower courts erred in arriving at the just compensation of the subject property. 28

Ruling of the Court

The consolidated Petitions are meritorious.

LBP insists that the lower courts should have: (1) considered the valuation factors specified in Section 17 of RA 6657, and (2) applied the formula prescribed by DAR AO No. 3, Series of 1991. 29 On the other hand, SLRC maintains that: (1) the tax declaration submitted to the RTC was switched and (2) Section 4 (a) of RA 8974 30 should apply by analogy pursuant to its Constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. 31

Verily, the controversy is hinged on the determination of just compensation for the subject property. As such, the parties are asking this Court to settle, once and for all, the proper valuation of the subject property's just compensation.

Settled is the rule that in eminent domain, the determination of just compensation is principally a judicial function of the RTC acting as a special agrarian court (SAC). In the exercise of such judicial function, however, the RTC must consider both the guidelines set forth in RA 6657 and the valuation formula under the applicable Administrative Order of the DAR. 32 These guidelines ensure that the landowner is given full and fair equivalent of the property expropriated, in an amount that is real, substantial, full and ample. 33

To stress, it is the RTC-SAC's duty to consider the factors for the determination of just compensation in Section 17 of RA 6657 and the formula prescribed under the pertinent DAR issuances. 34

Notwithstanding, this Court clarified in Department of Agrarian Reform v. Spouses Sta. Romana35 that the RTC is not strictly bound by the formula created by the DAR, if the situations before it do not warrant its application. The RTC cannot be arbitrarily restricted by the formula outlined by the DAR. While the DAR provides a formula, "it could not have been its intention to shackle the courts into applying the formula in every instance." Thus, the RTC may relax the application of the DAR formula, if warranted by the circumstances of the case and provided the RTC explains its deviation from the factors or formula above-mentioned. 36

In fine, in determining just compensation, the RTC-SAC necessarily works within the parameters set by law and as such, should take into account the formulae provided by DAR. Be that as it may, when acting within the parameters set by the law itself, the RTCSACs, are not strictly bound to apply the DAR formulae to its minute detail when the situation does not warrant the formula's strict application. The RTC, in the exercise of its judicial function of determining just compensation, cannot be restrained or delimited in the performance of its judicial function of determining just compensation as to do so would amount to a derogation of its judicial prerogative. 37

It is therefore inaccurate to argue that the RTC-SAC is mandated to strictly follow the formula, when the RTC-SAC, in the exercise of an essentially judicial function and discretion, can deviate therefrom subject to the jurisprudential limitation that the factual situation calls for it and that the RTC-SAC clearly explains the reason for such deviation. 38

As to the proper reckoning point, it is fundamental that just compensation should be determined at the time of the property's taking. 39 Here, the property was symbolically compulsorily taken in 1989. 40 Thus, the just compensation for the subject property should be reckoned therefrom, being considered the "time of taking" or the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property. 41 In this respect, it must be emphasized that while the LBP is charged with the initial responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under the land reform and, accordingly, the just compensation therefor, its valuation is considered only as an initial determination and, thus, not conclusive. 42 As discussed above, it is the RTC, sitting as a SAC, which should make the final determination of just compensation in the exercise of its judicial function.

Given the foregoing, it is clear that the just compensation due to SLRC must be computed pursuant to Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAR AO No. 17, series of 1989, 43 as amended by DAR AO No. 03, series of 1991, the prevailing DAR issuance at the time of the taking, which provides:

1. Only one formula shall be used regardless of the date of coverage/date of application for VOS:

 

LV

=

(CS x .3) + (CNI x .4) + (MV x .3)

 

Where:	LV	=	Land Value
	CS	=	Comparable Sales
	CNI	=	Capitalized Net Income
	MV	=	Market Value per Tax Declaration

 

1.1 If the factors for valuation are present, the land value shall be computed in accordance with the above formula.

1.2 Where CS could not be obtained and market value per mortgage (MVM) or Cost of Acquisition (CA) are not applicable, the formula to be used shall be:

LV = (CNI x .70) + (MV x .30)

1.3 Where CNI could not be obtained and only CS and MC are relevant/present, the formula to be used shall be:

LV = (CS x .55) + (MV x .45)

1.4 In case CNI and CS are not available, land valuation shall be based on the Market Value per tax declaration multiplied by 2. (MV x 2)

Further, Paragraph I.E of the same provides that:

E. Market Value per Tax Declaration (MV) — This shall refer to the market value per tax declaration (TD) issued before August 29, 1987 (effectivity of EO 229). The most recent tax assessment made prior to August 29, 1987 shall be considered. Adjustment for inflation using the Consumers' Price Index (CPI) reckoned from the period above stated up to the time of actual coverage shall be made.

Here, the RTC failed to explain why it deviated from the formula provided under DAR AO No. 17, series of 1989, as amended by DAR AO No. 03, series of 1991. Although the court a quo mentioned Section 17 of RA 6657, it failed to show that these factors were indeed considered. Worse, it did not explain its deviation from the factors and formula mentioned. Instead, it opted to apply the adjusted formula upheld by this Court in People v. Colarina (Colarina case) without any explanation as to why the same formula may be applicable in the instant case. The adjusted formula used in the said case is:

LV = (CNI x 90%) + (MV x 2)

It must be underlined that the Colarina case is not on all fours with the case at hand. The facts of the said case warranted the adjustment of the formula prescribed by law, which this Court does not deem applicable in this case. Moreover, in the same case, We have explicitly pronounced that:

We note that A.O. No. 6, Series of 1992 (as amended by A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994) has been superseded by A.O. No. 5, Series of 1998. However, A.O. No. 5, Series of 1998, is not applicable to the present case as the subject properties were assessed and valued prior to its effectivity.

As such, the CA erroneously affirmed the RTC in CA-G.R. SP No. 122384. It, likewise, failed to consider the applicability of DAR AO No. 17, series of 1989, as amended by DAR AO No. 03, series of 1991 pursuant to the very case it invoked.

Anent SLRC's claim that RA 8974 should apply by analogy to the case at hand, this Court reiterates the well-settled rule that on a specific matter, a special statute prevails over a general law. 44 RA 8974 applies to instances when the national government expropriates property for national government infrastructure projects. 45 However, since RA 6657 specifically applies to expropriation of land for agrarian reform, it must apply to the instant case. Further, it is a well-settled rule that the law must be taken and interpreted on its face when the same is clear and unambiguous. When the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning or applied according to its express terms, without any attempted interpretation, and leaving the court no room for any extended ratiocination or rationalization. 46 There is no room for construction or interpretation, there is only room for application. To reiterate, where the provision of the law is clear and unambiguous, so that there is no occasion for the court's seeking the legislative intent, the law must be taken as it is, devoid of judicial addition or subtraction. 47 Considering the clear mandate and wording of RA 6657, there is no basis for further construction of the law, nor for the application of RA 8974 by analogy. Accordingly, the CA erroneously applied RA 8974 in CA-G.R. SP No. 122489.

As to SLRC's allegation that the tax declaration submitted by LBP was switched, this Court notes that the records are bereft of evidence to sufficiently prove the same. Indeed, whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading. 48 This, SLRC failed to do. Consequently, the CA should not have considered such defense proffered by SLRC.

Finally, this Court reiterates that just compensation does not only refer to the full and fair equivalent of the property taken. It also means payment in full without delay. It is presumed that there is delay if the government failed to pay the property owner the full amount of just compensation on the date of taking. 49 In this regard, the payment of interest on unpaid just compensation is a basic requirement of fairness. Thus, LBP is liable to pay interest on the just compensation still due to SLRC, as just compensation is an effective forbearance on the part of the state. 50

Pursuant to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, as affirmed in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 51 and other relevant case law, the interest on the just compensation or the balance thereof shall be pegged at the rate of 12% per annum from the time of taking until 30 June 2013. Thereafter, or from 01 July 2013 until full payment, the just compensation due shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 52

In view of the foregoing, the Court is left with no option except to reverse and set aside the assailed CA Decisions and Resolutions and the RTC Decision and Joint Order. This Court, however, is not in a position to fix the amount of just compensation for indeed, a review of the records shows that there is no sufficient evidence submitted to allow the determination of the proper just compensation. 53

Concededly, LBP was able to sufficiently establish the CNI factor of the formula. 54 However, the same is not true regarding the MV component thereof. 55 While the CNI factor, as computed in the Land Valuation Sheet, finds support from and can be adequately explained by a simple perusal of the documents of the case, 56 the MV component on the other hand, does not have any similar support and basis as a thorough search of the records failed to produce the same. 57 While the Land Valuation Sheet shows that the computation was mathematically correct, 58 there is no way of knowing if the values or data used in the computation are true. 59 For this Court to accept such valuation would be jumping to a conclusion without anything to support it. 60 Since no certifiable document as regards the MV component was attached to the consolidated Petitions, this Court cannot compute for the same in order to counter-check the values used by the RTC, on the one hand, and by LBP, on the other hand.

Not being a trier of facts, the Court cannot also receive new evidence from the parties that would aid in the prompt resolution of this case. We are thus constrained to remand the case to the trial court for the reception of evidence and determination of just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAR AO No. 17, series of 1989, as amended by DAR AO No. 03, series of 1991. 61

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are GRANTED and the Decision dated 05 January 2015 and Resolution dated 24 April 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 122489, the Decision dated 25 January 2013 and the Resolution dated 03 October 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 122384, and effectively, the Decision dated 20 June 2011 and Joint Order dated 19 October 2011 of Branch 77, Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal in Agrarian Case No. A-04-010 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. This case is REMANDED to the trial court which is ordered to make, with utmost dispatch, the proper determination of just compensation in conformity with this Resolution.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 27-41, G.R. No. 209498; Id. at 8-18, G.R. No. 209503; and Id. at 11-29, G.R. No. 217895.

2.Rollo, pp. 110-118, G.R. No. 209498; penned by Judge Lily Villareal Biton of Branch 77, Regional Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal.

3.Id. at 119.

4.Id. at 27-41.

5.Id. at 8-18, G.R. No. 209503.

6.Id. at 43-53, G.R. No. 209498; penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Marlene Gonzales-Sison of the Sixth (6th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

7.Id. at 56-57.

8.Id. at 11-29, G.R. No. 217895.

9.Id. at 37-45; penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Tenth (10th ) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

10.Id. at 46-48.

11. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 10 June 1988.

12.Rollo, pp. 44-45, G.R. No. 209498.

13. Entitled "VESTING IN THE LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE LAND VALUATION AND COMPENSATION FOR ALL LANDS COVERED UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988," effective on 14 June 1990.

14.Supra at note 10.

15.Rollo, pp. 46, 118, G.R. No. 209498.

16. 644 Phil. 76, 86-105 (2010); G.R. No. 176410, 01 September 2010 [Per J. Nachura].

17.Rollo, p. 119, G.R. No. 209498.

18.Id. at 48.

19.Rollo, pp. 14-16, G.R. No. 217895.

20.Id. at 53, G.R. No. 209498.

21. Entitled "REVISED RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE VALUATION OF LANDS VOLUNTARILY OFFERED OR COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657," effective on 25 April 1998.

22.Rollo, pp. 51-52, G.R. No. 217895.

23.Id. at 56-57.

24.Id. at 44, G.R. No. 217895.

25.Id. at 43.

26.Id. at 43-44.

27.Id. at 46-48.

28.Id. at 16; Id. at 31-32, G.R. No. 209498; and Id. at 14, G.R. No. 209503.

29. Entitled "RULES AND REGULATIONS AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF AO 17 WHICH GOVERNS THE VALUATION OF LANDS VOLUNTARILY OFFERED PURSUANT TO EO 229 AND RA 6657 AND COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO RA 6657," approved on 25 April 1991; Id. at 32-34, G.R. No. 209498; Id. at 16-27, G.R. No. 217895.

30. Entitled "AN ACT TO FACILITATE THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, SITE OR LOCATION FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 07 November 2000.

31.Rollo, pp. 15-16, G.R. No. 209503.

32.Land Bank of the Philippines v. Uy, G.R. No. 221313, 05 December 2019 [Per J. J.C. Reyes, Jr.], citing Department of Agrarian Reform v. Galle, 741 Phil. 1, 4 (2014); G.R. Nos. 171836 & 195213, 11 August 2014 [Per J. Del Castillo].

33.Id., citing Spouses Mercado v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 760 Phil. 846, 856 (2015); G.R. No. 196707, 17 June 2015 [Per J. Del Castillo].

34.See Land Bank of the Phils. v. Eusebio, 738 Phil. 7, 21 (2014); G.R. No. 160143, 02 July 2014, [Per J. Brion] and Land Bank of the Phils. v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, 724 Phil. 276, 299 (2014); G.R. No. 172551, 15 January 2014 [Per J. Brion].

35.See Department of Agrarian Reform v. Spouses Sta. Romana, 738 Phil. 590, 604 (2014); G.R. No. 183290, 09 July 2014 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].

36.See Land Bank of the Phils. v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, supra at note 33 at 288.

37.Land Bank of the Philippines v. Omengan, 813 Phil. 901, 912 (2017); G.R. No. 196412, 19 July 2017 [Per J. Tijam].

38.See Spouses Mercado v. Land Bank of the Phils., 760 Phil. 846, 856-857 (2015); G.R. No. 196707, 17 June 2015 [Per J. Del Castillo].

39.Land Bank of the Phils. v. Lajom, 741 Phil. 655, 665 (2014); G.R. Nos. 184982 & 185048, 20 August 2014 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe], citing Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Tecson, 713 Phil. 55, 87-88 (2013); G.R. No. 179334, July 1, 2013 [Per C.J. Peralta].

40.Rollo, p. 216, G.R. No. 209498; See supra at note 36; see also Land Bank of the Philippines v. Spouses Chu, 808 Phil. 179, 189-211 (2017); G.R. No. 192345, 29 March 2017 [Per J. DelCastillo].

41.See Land Bank of the Phils. v. Lajom, supra at note 39.

42.Id.

43. Entitled "RULES AND REGULATIONS AMENDING VALUATION OF LANDS VOLUNTARILY OFFERED PURSUANT TO EO 229 AND RA 6657 AND THOSE COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO RA 6657."

44.Camacho v. Gloria, 456 Phil. 399, 410 (2003); G.R. No. 138862, 15 August 2013 [Per J. Quisumbing].

45.Republic v. Spouses Cancio, 597 Phil. 342, 349 (2009); G.R. No. 170147, 30 January 2009 [Per J. Corona], citing Section 1, RA 8974.

46.Ocampo v. Rear Admiral Enriquez, 815 Phil. 1175, 1228 (2017); G.R. No. 225973, 08 August 2017 [Per C.J. Peralta], citing People v. Quijada, 328 Phil. 505, 555 (1996); G.R. Nos. 115008-09, 24 July 1996 [Per C.J. Davide, Jr.] and Barcellano v. Bañas, 673 Phil. 177, 187 (2011); G.R. No. 165287, 14 September 2011 [Per J. Perez].

47.Bondad v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., C.T.A. EB Case No. 1316, 13 February 2017, citing Acting Commissioner of Customs v. Manila Electric Company, 168 Phil. 119, 123 (1977); G.R. No. L-23623, 30 June 1977 [Per J. Fernando] and Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, G.R. Nos. 168056, 168207, 168461, 168463 & 168730, 01 September 2005, 469 SCRA 14 [Per J. Austria-Martinez].

48.Spouses Sy v. Westmont Bank, 797 Phil. 694, 703 (2016); G.R. No. 201074, 19 October 2016 [Per J. Mendoza].

49.Land Bank of the Phils. v. Barrido (Resolution), G.R. No. 198478, 06 March 2019.

50.Land Bank of the Phils. v. Uy, supra at note 32, citing Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Phils., 647 Phil. 251, 275 (2010); G.R. No. 164195, 12 October 2010 [Per J. Brion].

51. 716 Phil. 267, 279-283 (2013); G.R. No. 189871, 13 August 2013 [Per C.J. Peralta].

52.Supra at note 49.

53.See Republic v. Larrazabal, 814 Phil. 684, 692-697 (2017); G.R. No. 204530, 26 July 2017 [Per J. Caguioa].

54.Rollo, pp. 240, 243, G.R. No. 209498.

55.Id. at 241, 244; See also Land Bank of the Philippines v. Spouses Chu, supra at note 40.

56.Id. at 240, 243, G.R. No. 209498.

57.Supra at note 55.

58.Id. at 241.

59.Land Bank of the Phils. v. Livioco, 645 Phil. 337, 363 (2010); G.R. No. 170685, 22 September 2010 [Per J. Del Castillo].

60.Id.

61.Id.