GG  On September 25, 2001, the RTC fixed the just compensation for the

petitioners’ 1,338.6047 hectares of land at P1,383,179,000.00, with

Case Title: (1) APO Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. vs Land Bank of interest on this amount at the prevailing market interests rates,
the Philippines computed from the taking of properties on December 9, 1996 until fully
paid minus the amounts the petitioners already received under initial
G.R. Number & Date: 164195. October 12, 2010 valuation.
 The RTC modified its ruling and fixed the interest at the rate of 12% per
Nature of the Case: annum from the time the complaint was filed until finality of the
decision. The third division of this court affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
Doctrine/Principle: Eminent Domain  On MR, the Third Division issued its Resolution it Feb 6, 2007 decision by
deleting the 12% interest due on the balance of the awarded just
Petitioners: APO Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. (AFC and HPI) – compensation. They justified the deletion by the finding that the LBP did
registered owners of vast tracks of land. AFC owned 640.3483 hectares while HPI not delay the payment of just compensation as it had deposited the
owned 805.5308 hectares. pertinent amounts due to AFC and HPI within fourteen months after
they filed their complaints for just compensation with the RTC.
Respondents: Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)  All parties moved for reconsideration of the modified ruling. The Court
uniformly denied all the motions in its April 30, 2008 resolution. Entry of
Facts: Judgment followed on May 16, 2008.
 Notwithstanding the Entry of Judgment, AFC and HPI led the following
 On October 12, 1995, the petitioners voluntarily offered to sell these motions on May 28, 2008: (1) Motion for Leave to File and Admit Second
landholdings to the government via Voluntary Offer to Sell applications Motion for Reconsideration; (2) Second Motion for Reconsideration,
filed with the DAR. with respect to the denial of the award of legal interest and attorney's
 On October 16, 1996, both the AFC and HPI received separate notices of fees; and (3) Motion to Refer the Second Motion for Reconsideration to
land acquisition and valuation of their properties from the DAR’s the Honorable Court En Banc. IC
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO). P165,484.47 per hectare,  The Court by En Banc by a majority vote denied the petitioners’ second
AFC’s land was valued at P86,900,925.88, while HPI’s property was MR on two considerations:
valued at P164,478,178.14. Both the AFC and HPI rejected these o The grant of second MR runs counter to the immutability of
valuations for being very low. final decisions. Moreover, the court saw no reason to recognize
 DAR requested the LBP to deposit P26,409,549.86 in AFC’s bank the case as an exception to the immutability principle as the
account and P45,481,706.76 in HPI’s bank account which amounts the petitioners’ private claim for the payment of interest does not
petitioners withdrew. The titles over AFC and HPI’s properties were qualify as either a substantial or transcendental matter or an
thereafter cancelled, and new ones were issued on December 9, 1996 in issue of paramount interest.
the name of the Republic of the Philippines. o Petitioners’ caused the delay of the payment hence they are not
 On February 14, 1997: AFC and HPI filed separate petitions for entitled to recover interest on the just compensation and
determination of just compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board attorney’s fees. They erroneously filed their complaints with the
(DARAB). DARAB failed to act on these petitions for more than three DARAB when they should have directly filed these with the RTC
years. AFC and HPI filed complaints for determination and payment of acting as an agrarian court.
just compensation with the RTC of Tagum City.
 The Chico-Nazario Dissent The Court En Banc's Resolution dated December 4, 2009, as well as the
Third Division's Resolutions dated April 30, 2008 and December 19, 2007,
o Issue of immutability of judgment, she pointed out that under are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
extraordinary circumstances, this Court has recalled entries of
judgment on the ground of substantial justice. The respondent Land Bank of the Philippines is herebyORDERED to pay
o In the exercise of the State’s inherent power of eminent petitioners Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. interest at the
domain, for the payment to be just, the compensation must not rate of 12% per annum on the unpaid balance of the just compensation,
only be the correct amount to be paid; it must also be paid computed from the date the Government took the properties on
within a reasonable time from the time the land is taken from December 9, 1996, until the respondent Land Bank of the Philippines paid
the owner. If not, the State must pay the landowner interest, by on May 9, 2008 the balance on the principal amount.
way of damages, from the time the property was taken until
just compensation is fully paid. This interest, deemed a part of Unless the parties agree to a shorter payment period, payment shall be in
just compensation due, has been established by prevailing monthly installments at the rate of P60,000,000.00 per month until the
jurisprudence to be 12% per annum. whole amount owing, including interest on the outstanding balance, is
o On these premises, Justice Nazario pointed out that the fully paid.
government deprived the petitioners of their property on
December 9, 1996, and paid the balance of just compensation Costs against the respondent Land Bank of the Philippines.
due them only on May 9, 2008. The delay of almost 12 years
earned the petitioners interest in the total amount of SO ORDERED.
P1,331,124,223.05

o The Court find the petitioners’ arguments meritorious and accordingly HELD: YES. The amounts LBP deposited before although withdrawn by the
grant the present motion for reconsideration. petitioners were nothing but partial payments that only amounted to 5% of the
P1,383,179,000.00 actual value of the expropriated properties. This could not be
Petitioner’s Arguments: (see facts) considered a fair exchange of values at the time of the taking.

Respondent’s Arguments: (see facts) While the LBP immediately paid the remaining balance on the just compensation
due to the petitioners after this Court had fixed the value of the expropriated
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the interest on the just properties, it overlooks one essential fact – from the time that the State took
compensation? petitioners’ properties until the time that the petitioners were fully paid, almost 12
long years passed. This is the rationale for imposing the 12% interest – in order to
FALLO: compensate the petitioners for the income they would have made had they been
properly compensated for their properties at the time of the taking.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the petitioners' motion
for reconsideration. The interest, however erroneous it may be, cannot be inequitable and
unconscionable because it resulted directly from the application of law and
jurisprudence – standards that have taken into account fairness and equity in
setting the interest rates due for the use or forbearance of money.
 Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution (which reads "No private property
Suffice it to say that public interest refers to what will benefit the public, not shall be taken for public use without just compensation.") provides two essential
necessarily the government and its agencies whose task it to contribute to the limitations to the power of eminent domain, namely, that (1) the purpose of
benefit of the public. Greater public benefit will result if government agencies like taking must be for public use and (2) just compensation must be given to the
the LBP are conscientious in undertaking its tasks in order to avoid the situation owner of the private property.
facing it in this case. Greater public interest would be served if it can contribute to
the credibility of the government’s land reform program through the "just" as the safeguard is there to ensure a balance — property is not to be taken
conscientious handling of this program. for public use at the expense of private interests; the public, through the State,
must balance the injury that the taking of property causes through
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken compensation for what is taken, value for value.
from its owner by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court
that the measure 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 Case Title: (2) APO Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. vs Land Bank of
the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, the Philippines
substantial, full, and ample.
G.R. Number & Date: 164195. April 5, 2011
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 Facts:
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. The LBP submits the following arguments in support of its 2nd motion for
Basically, the requirements for a proper exercise of the power are: reconsideration:

(1) public use and a. the test of "transcendental importance" does not apply to the present
(2) just compensation. case;
b. the standard of "transcendental importance" cannot justify the negation
of the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment and the abrogation of
Notes: a vested right in favor of the Government that respondent LBP
represents;
Eminent domain is the power of the State to take private property for public use. c. the Honorable Court ignored the deliberations of the 1986
It is an inherent power of State as it is a power necessary for the State's Constitutional Commission showing that just compensation for
existence; it is a power the State cannot do without. As an inherent power, it expropriated agricultural property must be viewed in the context of
does not need at all to be embodied in the Constitution; if it is mentioned at all, it social justice; and
is solely for purposes of limiting what is otherwise an unlimited power. The d. granting arguendo that the interest payment has factual and legal bases,
limitation is found in the Bill of Rights — that part of the Constitution whose only six (6%) percent interest per annum may be validly imposed. THIS
provisions all aim at the protection of individuals against the excessive exercise WAS ADDRESSED IN THE FIRST DIGEST
of governmental powers.
Issue: Whether or not LBP’s second motion for reconsideration must be granted?
Fallo: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the respondent's second motion for owner just compensation for the property taken. For compensation to be
reconsideration and the motion to set the case for oral arguments are hereby considered "just," it must not only be the full and fair equivalent of the property
DENIED WITH ABSOLUTE FINALITY. The motion for intervention led by the Office taken; it must also be paid to the landowner without delay.
of the Solicitor General is, likewise, denied. We reiterate, under pain of contempt
if our directive is disregarded or disobeyed, that no further pleadings shall be
entertained. Let judgment be entered in due course.

Held: NO.

On its face, the staggering difference between the LBP's initial valuation of the
petitioners' properties (totaling P251,379,104.02) and the RTC's valuation (totaling
P1,383,179,000.00) —a difference of P1,131,799,895.98 amounting to 81% of the
total price — betrays the lack of good faith on the part of the government in
dealing with the landowners. The sheer enormity of the difference between the
two amounts cannot but lead us to conclude that the LBP's error was grievous and
amounted to nothing less than gross negligence in the exercise of its duty — in
this case, to properly ascertain the just compensation due to the petitioners.

In the present case, it is undisputed that the government took the petitioners’
lands on December 9, 1996 and the petitioners only received the full payment of
the just compensation due on May 9, 2008. The properties taken were fully
operational and earning at the time. Thus the landowners lost not only their
properties, but the fruits of these properties. The interest is not only proper but
the right form of indemnity for the damages suffered by the petitioners.

We reject the basic premise of the LBP's and Mr. Justice Abad's arguments for
being awed. The present case goes beyond the private interests involved; it
involves a matter of public interest — the proper application of a basic
constitutionally-guaranteed right, namely, the right of a landowner to receive just
compensation when the government exercises the power of eminent domain in
its agrarian reform program.

Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution expresses the constitutional rule on
eminent domain — "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation." While confirming the State's inherent power and right to take
private property for public use, this provision at the same time lays down the
limitation in the exercise of this power. When it takes property pursuant to its
inherent right and power, the State has the corresponding obligation to pay the