JUST COMPENSATION; PAYMENT OF THE COMPENSATION MUST BE WITHIN THE REASONABLE TIME FROM ITS TAKING

APO Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals and Land Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. 164195 (February 6, 2007)
Facts:

Apo Fruits Corporation (AFC) and Hijo Plantation, Inc. (HPI) are the registered owners of five parcels of agricultural lands located in San Isidro, Tagum, Davao Province. On 12 October 1995, AFC and HPI voluntarily offered to sell the above parcels of land to the government. On 16 October 1996, AFC and HPI received separately from PARO of Davao province a notice of land acquisition and valuation, informing AFC that the value of the properties has been placed at P86,900,925.88 or P165,484.47 per hectare while HPI's properties were valued at P164,478,178.14. AFC rejected the valuation for both TCTs No. T-113366 and No. 113359, and applied for the shifting of the mode of acquisition for TCT No. 113359 from Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) to Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme. HPI also rejected the valuation of its three parcels of land covered by TCTs No. T-10361, No. T-10362 and No. T-10363. Owing to the rejection by both AFC and HPI of LBP's valuation, the DAR requested LBP to deposit the amounts equivalent to their valuations in the names and for the accounts of AFC and HPI. AFC thereafter withdrew the amount of P26,409,549.86, while HPI withdrew the amount of P45,481,706.76, both in cash from LBP. The DAR PARO then directed the Register of Deeds of Davao to cancel the TCTs of AFC and HPI to the said properties and to issue a new one in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. After the issuance of the certificate of title in the name of the RP the ROD of Davao, upon the request of the DAR, issued TCTs and Certificates of Land Ownership Award to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. On 14 February 1997, AFC and HPI filed separate complaints for determination of just compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). Despite the lapse of more than three years from the filing of the complaints, the DARAB failed and refused to render a decision on the valuation of the land. Hence, two complaints for determination and payment of just compensation were filed by AFC and HPI before Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City (acting as a Special Agrarian Court), which were subsequently consolidated.

The SAC rendered a decision dated 25 September 2001 fixing the just compensation for the 1,388.6027 hectares of lands and its improvements owned by the plaintiffs. LBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 5 October 2001 on the ground that the trial court based its valuation on the value of residential and industrial lands in the area forgetting that the lands involved are agricultural. On December 5, 2001, the trial court modified its decision ordering the DAR to pay interest. LBP filed a Notice of Appeal and was given due course in the Order of the RTC dated 15 May 2002. In the same Order, the RTC set aside its Order dated 5 December 2001 granting execution pending appeal. On 28 March 2003, LBP filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the 4 November 2002 and 12 February 2003 orders of the trial court. The Court of Appeals granted said petition for being meritorious. AFC and HPI filed a joint Motion for Reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution dated 21 June 2004. Earlier, on 23 January 2003, DAR filed its own separate petition before the Court of Appeals by way of a Petition for Review. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition of the DAR for failure to state the material dates under Rule 42, Section 2, of the Rules of Court. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Petition filed by the DAR in CA-G.R. SP No. 74879 became final and executory and entry of judgment was issued by the appellate court on 7 May 2003. On the other hand, from the decision of the Court of Appeals in the Petition filed by LBP in CA-G.R. SP No. 76222, AFC and HPI filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not there is payment of Just Compensation?

Held:

The concept of just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" inasmuch as the property owner is being made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss. Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. It is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample.

When the trial court arrived at the valuation of a landowner's property taking into account its nature as irrigated land, location along the highway, market value, assessor's value and the volume and value of its produce, such valuation is considered in accordance with Republic Act No. 6657. Conspicuously, the trial court did not merely rely solely on the appraisal report submitted by the Commissioners. The trial court conducted hearings for the purpose of receiving the parties' evidence. The SAC, correctly determined the amount of just compensation due to AFC and HPI.