Scribd
Upload
99 views1 page

Lubrica Vs LBP

The case involved two separate lands that underwent land reform. For the first land, the assignee disputed the valuation set by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) after the land was subdivided and given to farmers. For the second land, the heirs disputed the LBP's valuation after the land was inherited. The Supreme Court found that the LBP's actions were invalid because under Philippine law, payment of just compensation is required before the government can take private property under land reform. The owners were deprived of their lands without receiving compensation from LBP first.

Uploaded by

Jerico Godoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
99 views1 page

Lubrica Vs LBP

The case involved two separate lands that underwent land reform. For the first land, the assignee disputed the valuation set by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) after the land was subdivided and given to farmers. For the second land, the heirs disputed the LBP's valuation after the land was inherited. The Supreme Court found that the LBP's actions were invalid because under Philippine law, payment of just compensation is required before the government can take private property under land reform. The owners were deprived of their lands without receiving compensation from LBP first.

Uploaded by

Jerico Godoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, in her capacity as Assignee of FEDERICO C.

SUNTAY, NENITA SUNTAY


TAÑEDO and EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
(G.R. NO. 170220: November 20, 2006)

FACTS OF THE CASE:


2 separate lands that underwent to CARP valuation was the topic of this case. The first land
underwent to CARP in its holder of the title by the assignee wherein that certain land
subdivided by the provincial agrarian reform office to its farmer beneficiaries and later on paid
by the LBP in its fixed amount. Subsequently the second land also underwent to CARP in its
holder by inheritance, this time, the appropriated value by the LBP disagreed by the decedent.
A commencement of action against the LBP acted upon this case wherein the provincial office
until it reached the Court of Appeals favored the respondent bank. Aggrieved, the petitioners
sought for review to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:
Whether the LBP validly expropriated the property without the completed compensation as to
the owner of the property?

HELD:
The actions of the LBP were invalidated.

The Court found that petitioners were deprived of their properties without payment of just
compensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite before the property can be taken away
from its owners. The transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government are
conditioned upon the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the
DAR of the compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner.

Hence, the Court noted several jurisprudence that pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 in
relation to Executive Order 228 that there must be an expropriation upon the completion of
just compensation which could be distributed to landless.

The petition was granted.

You might also like