Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1


164195, April 5, 2011 Facts: AFC and HPI owned agricultural lands which they voluntarily offered to sell to the government. However, they did not agree to the LBPs valuation of the land, stating that the valuations were unreasonably low and inadequate as just compensation for the properties. DAR then requested LBP to deposit the amounts equivalent to the LBP valuations in the names of both AFC and HPI. The latter both withdrew several millions from the said accounts. Thereafter, new TCTs over the lands were issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, and CLOAs were subsequently issued to farmer-beneficiaries. AFC and HPI both filed complaints for determination of just compensation. Issue: W/N LBP may determine the amount of just compensation. If so, W/N it correctly determined the value of the lands in question. Ruling: NO. The valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court. NO. In the determination of just compensation, all the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities, may be shown and considered in estimating its value. The determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function. The determination of just compensation cannot be made to the prejudice of the sellers or of the government. Requirements for a proper exercise of eminent domain: 1. Public use 2. Just compensation

Apo Fruits vs. LBP, GR 164195, APRIL 5, 2011 FACTS: We resolve Land Bank of the Philippines (LBPs) 2nd motion for reconsideration of December 14, 2010 that addresses one resolution of October 12, 2010 and November 23, 2010. This motion prays as well for the holding of oral arguments. We likewise resolve the office of the Solicitor Generals motion for leave to intervene and to admit motion for reconsideration-in-intervention dated February 15, 2011 in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. Issue: Should just compensation under the agrarian reform program be differently from the just compensation in any other case of expropriation? RULING: the constitutional basis of the Agrarian Reform Program is Section 4, Article XIII of the constitution. This provision expressly provides that the taking of the land for use in the governments agrarian reform program is conditioned on the payment of just compensation. Nothing in the wording of this provision even remotely suggests that the just compensation required from the taking of land for the agrarian reform program should be treated any differently from the just compensation required in any other case of expropriation. The term "just compensation" is used in several parts of the Constitution, and, therefore, it must have a uniform meaning.