JUST COMPENSATION.

G.R. No. 164195,

April 5, 2011
APO FRUITS CORPORATION and HIJO PLANTATION, INC., Petitioners,
vs.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:
APO Fruits Corporation, Inc. (AFC) and Hijo Plantation Inc. (HPI) were owners
of 5 parcels of land (1338.60 has.) located in San Isidro, Tagum, Davao. On 12
October 1995, the two voluntarily offered to sell the properties to the DAR. DAR
offered P86.9 million for AFCs land and P164.40 million for HPIs land (total of about
P251.3 million). AFC, HPI and DAR cannot agree on a price hence the Complaint for
Determination of Just Compensation was filed before the DAR Adjudication Board on
14 February 1997. The DARAB failed to render a decision on the valuation of the
land for three years. But nevertheless, the government, through the Land Bank of
the Philippines, deposited P26M into AFCs account and P45M into HPIs account as
down payment in 1996. The DAR also caused the titling of the land in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines in December 1996. Later, titles were given to farmers
under the CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program).
Due to DARABs failure to adjudicate, AFC and HPI filed a complaint for
determination of just compensation before the RTC of Davao which rendered a
decision in favor of AFC and HPI. The RTC ruled, based on the reports it gathered
from assessors, that the purchase price should be higher than what was offered by
DAR; that the purchase price should be at P103.33/ sq. m; that DAR is to pay AFC
and HPI a total of P1.38 billion. DAR appealed to the CA, the CA reversed the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was just compensation.
FACTS:
No. AFCs and HPIs land were taken in 1996 without just compensation.
DARAB, an agency of the DAR which was commissioned by law to determine just
compensation, sat on the cases for three years, which was the reason that AFC and
HPI filed the cases before the RTC. The RTCs finding is to be sustained as it based
its ruling on evidence. DAR was given chance to support its ruling on why the
purchase price should be at a lower amount but DAR failed to present such
evidence. To allow the taking of landowners properties, and to leave them emptyhanded while government withholds compensation is undoubtedly oppressive.
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 has been repeatedly stressed by this
Court that the measure is not the takers gain but the owners 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.
The power of expropriation is by no means absolute (as indeed no power is
absolute). The limitation is found in the constitutional injunction that private
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation and in the
abundant jurisprudence that has evolved from the interpretation of this principle.
Basically, the requirements for a proper exercise of the power are:
(1) public use and
(2) just compensation.
Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)
provides:
SEC. 57. Special Jurisdiction. The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original
and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this
Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian
Courts, unless modified by this Act.
Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, which is particularly relevant, providing
as it does the guideposts for the determination of just compensation, reads, as
follows:
Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just
compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like
properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the
tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be
considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the
farm-workers and by the Government to the property as well as the non-payment of
taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land
shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.
Note should be taken that in said Appraisal Report, permanent improvements on
AFCs and HPIs lands have been introduced and found existing, e.g., all weatherroad network, airstrip, pier, irrigation system, packing houses, among others,
wherein substantial amount of capital funding have been invested in putting them
up.
The agricultural properties of AFC and HPI are just a stones throw from the
residential and/or industrial sections of Tagum City, a fact DAR should never ignore.
The market value of the property (plus the consequential damages less
consequential benefits) is determined by such factors as the value of like properties,
its actual or potential use, its size, shape and location. Therefore, AFC and HPI is
entitled to the amount of just compensation (Php 1.38 billion) as computed with
12% interest per annum plus attorneys fees amounting to 10% of the just
compensation or P138 million.