BILL OF RIGHTS, EMINENT DOMAIN, JUST COMPENSATION

DOCTRINE:

Article 3, Section 9 of the Constitution states that private property shall not be taken for public use.
As held in the case of Assoc. of Small Landowners in the PH, Inc. vs. Hon. Sec. of Agrarian Reform,
“just compensation” is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner
by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.

LANDBANK OF THE PHILS vs. HABABAG, SR.

GR No. 172352, September 16, 2015

FACTS:

Alfredo Hababag owned several agricultural lands in Sorsogon which were expropriated by the
government under R.A. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. The Land Bank
of the Phils. initially valued said lands at P1,237,850 which Alfredo rejected. RTC valued the same
at P5,653,940 but amended its decision to P40,423,400. The CA set aside RTC’s valuation and
considered just compensation for the lands to be P2,398,487.24 plus interest at 12% p.a. from the
time of expropriation or the filing of complaint, whichever is earlier.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA’s award of just compensation is valid

HELD:

YES. The Court finds CA’s valuation of just compensation, which made use of the DAR formula as
set forth in Section 17 of R.A. 6657, valid. However, regarding interests, the interest rate must be
12% p.a. from the time of expropriation until June 30, 2013 pursuant to Sec. 2 of Central Bank
Circular No. 905, series of 1982 and 6% p.a. from July 1, 2013 onwards pursuant to BSP Circular No.
799, series of 2013 which amended the old 12% p.a. interest rate.
BILL OF RIGHTS, EMINENT DOMAIN, JUST COMPENSATION

DOCTRINE:

Article 3, Section 9 of the Constitution states that private property shall not be taken for public use.
As held in the case of Assoc. of Small Landowners in the PH, Inc. vs. Hon. Sec. of Agrarian Reform,
“just compensation” is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner
by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.

LANDBANK OF THE PHILS vs. LAJOM

GR Nos. 184982 &185048, August 20, 2014

FACTS:

Jose Lajom and his mother Vicenta Lajom owned several lands in Nueva Ecija which were
expropriated under the government’s Operation Land Transfer Program pursuant to P.D. 27 or the
“Tenants Emancipation Decree”. Accordingly, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) through
the LBP offered to pay just compensation which Lajom rejected. The RTC fixed the just
compensation at P3,858,912 with legal interest at 6% p.a. which was affirmed by the CA with
modification to delete the 6% interest p.a. The CA ordered LBP to pay Lajom the P3,858,912 plus
damages at the interest rate of 12% p.a. instead from March 11, 2004 until fully paid for the delay
of nonpayment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA’s award of just compensation is valid

HELD:

No. Pursuant to Section 17 of RA 6657, just compensation should be determined at the time of the
property’s taking or the “time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his
property”, which in this case was at the time the emancipation patents were issued by the
government between 1994 to 1998. Regarding interests, the legal rate must be 12% p.a. from the
time of taking until June 30, 2013 and 6% p.a. from July 1, 2013 until fully paid, conforming with BSP
Circular No. 799, Series of 2013.
CITIZENSHIP, DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL ALLEGIANCE, FOUNDLINGS, ELECTION LAW, CANDIDATES,
QUALIFICATION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATES

DOCTRINE:

Article 3, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no person may be elected as President
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines…”

POE-LLAMANZARES vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

GR Nos. 221697 & 221698-700, March 8, 2016

DOCTRINE:

Article 3, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no person may be elected as President
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines…”

FACTS:

Grace Poe ran for presidency in the May 2016 elections. In her Certificate of Candidacy (COC),
she declared that she is a natural-born citizen and a resident of the Philippines for 10 years and 11
months. Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to cancel her COC since Grace Poe is not a
natural-born citizen because she is a foundling and her biological parents cannot be proved to
be Filipinos.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Grace Poe is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines

HELD:

Yes. The Court held that there is a high probability that Poe’s parents are Filipinos, as shown in her
typical Filipino features. Additionally, she was abandoned in a municipality with an overwhelming
Filipino population such that there would be a 99% chance that a child born in the province would
be a Filipino. Said probability and evidence is admissible under Rule 128, Section 4 of the Rules on
Evidence. Moreover, foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens. While the 1935 Constitution’s
enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language excluding foundlings either.