PANES VS.

VISAYAS STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, 263 SCRA 708 Facts: On March 21, 1977, then President Marcos issued Presidential Decree(P.D.) No. 1107 establishing the Philippine Root Crops Research and TrainingCenter in the Visayas State College of Agriculture (hereafter VISCA) located at Baybay, Leyte. Pursuant to the purposes of the Root Crops Center, VISCA was authorized under P.D. No.1107 to acquire by negotiated sale or expropriation.

On May 15, 1978, petitioners filed their answer to the complaint. They alleged that (1) the lands sought to be expropriated were not within the area specified under P.D. No. 1107; (2) the amount of P74,050.00 did not constitute just compensation; ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT JUST COMPENSATION IS DETERMINED? Held: The trial court is hereby ordered to issue a writ of possession in CAR Case No. 1659 in favor of respondent VISCA pending trial on the merits but only after payment of just compensation determined by the trial court in accordance with Section 2, Rule 67, of the Revised Rules of Court.

REPUBLIC vs. CA, 227 SCRA 401 Facts: Petitioner (PIA) instituted expropriation proceedings covering a total of 544,980 square meters of contiguous land situated along MacArthur Highway, Malolos, Bulacan, to be utilized for the continued broadcast operation and use of radio transmitter facilities for the Voice of the Philippines project. Petitioner made a deposit of P517,558.80, the sum provisionally fixed as being the reasonable value of the property. On 26 February 1979, or more than 9 years after the institution of the expropriation proceedings, the trial court issued this order condemning the property and ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendants the just compensation for the property. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not just compensation is being determined? HELD: by filing the action, the condemnor in effect merely serves notice that it is taking title and possession of the property, and the defendant asserts title or

interest in the property, not to prove a right to possession, but to prove a right to compensation for the taking. The trial court of Bulacan in issuing its order, dated 01 March 2000, vacating its decision of 26 February 1979 has acted beyond its lawful cognizance, the only authority left to it being to order its execution. Verily, private respondents, although not entitled to the return of the expropriated property, deserve to be paid promptly on the yet unpaid award of just compensation already fixed by final judgment of the Bulacan RTC on 26 February 1979 at P6.00 per square meter, with legal interest thereon at 12% per annum computed from the date of "taking" of the property, i.e., 19 September 1969, until the due amount shall have been fully paid.

Association of Small Landowners v. DAR, 175 SCRA 343 (1989) Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case:
a. A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. 27, EO 228 and 229 and RA 6657. Subjects of the petition are a 9hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants. Tenants were declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27. The petitioners now contend that President Aquino usurped the legislatures power. b. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in Victorias Mill Negros Occidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229. Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with initial fund of P50Billion. c. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. d. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares.

Issue:
and

Whether or Not the aforementioned EOs, PD, RA were constitutional.

Held:

The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of Police power and eminent domain. The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. 131 and EO 228 and 229 was authorized under Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Therefore it is a valid exercise of Police Power and Eminent Domain. RA 6657 is likewise valid. The carrying out of the regulation under CARP becomes necessary to deprive owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative.
NAPOCOPR vs Sps. De la Cruz GR No. 156093, February 2, 2007 FACTS: Petitioner NAPOCOR decided to acquire an easement of right-of-way over portions of land within the areas of Dasmarias and Imus, Cavite for the construction and maintenance of the proposed Dasmarias-Zapote 230 kV Transmission Line Project, thus, filed a Complaint for eminent domain and expropriation of an easement of rightof-way against respondents as registered owners of the parcels of land sought to be expropriated. Respondents filed their respective answers to petitioners Complaint, petitioner deposited PhP 5,788.50 to cover the provisional value of the land in accordance with Section 2, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Then, petitioner filed an Urgent ExParte Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession, which the trial court granted. The commissioners conducted an ocular inspection of S.K. Dynamics property, and on October 8, 1999, they submitted a report to the trial court, and both commissioners recommended that the property of S.K. Dynamics to be expropriated by petitioner be valued at PhP 10,000.00 per square meter. ISSUE: WON PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN IT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE EXPROPRIATED PROPERTY BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. HELD: SC finds petition meritous. Rule 67 of the Rules of Court is clear that in addition to the ocular inspection performed by the two (2) appointed commissioners in this case, they are also required to conduct a hearing or hearings to determine just compensation; and to provide the parties the following: (1) notice of the said hearings and the opportunity to attend them; (2) the opportunity to introduce evidence in their favor during the said hearings; and (3) the opportunity for the parties to argue their respective causes during the said hearings.

Thus, trial with the aid of the commissioners is a substantial right that may not be done away with capriciously or for no reason at all. Therefore, it is insufficient to hold that a Motion for Reconsideration in an expropriation case cures the defect in due process. Petition Granted.

Leca Realty vs. Republic GR No. 155605, September 27, 2006 FACTS: On 18 March 1996, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), filed a complaint for eminent domain for the taking of some portions of the properties of Leca Realty Corp. (Leca), Leeleng Realty Inc. (Leeleng), Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (Metrobank), Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), and Cityland Inc. (Cityland). The said properties would be affected by the construction of the EDSA-Shaw Boulevard Overpass Project in Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong City, a public purpose to be undertaken by the DPWH. On October 7, 1997, the court a quo appointed three (3) competent and disinterested persons; namely, Atty. Benjamin C. Angeles, Mr. Joselito E. Gunio and Mr. Melchor Savillo as commissioners to ascertain and report the just compensation of the properties sought to be taken. ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals incurred an error of law in affirming the amount fixed by the trial court based on the report of the board of commissioners ofP50,000 per square meter as just compensation for the taking of petitioner [Lecas] 1,217 square meter property at Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong City, while adjudging other parties whose lands were also expropriated in the same vicinity to payment of P125,000.00 per square meter for Metrobank and BPI, andP137,500.00 per square meter for City Land, Inc. [or] more than double the value fixed for petitioner [Lecas] land. HELD: In expropriation proceedings in general, the market value is the just compensation to which the owner of a condemned property is entitled. More precisely,market value is that sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received therefor. As both the Republic and Leca correctly pointed out, however, the Commissioners Report relied heavily on newspaper advertisements of offers of sale of properties in the vicinity. Clearly, these offers were merely asking prices. By their very nature, they are subject to negotiations in which a buyer may ask for a lower price; understandably, it is customary for the owner to raise the price offer. WHEREFORE, the Petition of the Republic in GR No. 160179 is DISMISSED, while that of Leca Realty Corporation is REMANDED to the trial court for the proper determination of the amount of just compensation. National Power Corporation vs. Angas GR 60225-26, 8 May 1992 FACTS: On 13 April and 3 December 1974, NAPOCOR filed two complaints for eminent domain with the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur against Lacsamana Batugan, and/or Guimba Shipping & Development Corporation, Magancong Digayan, Moctara Lampaco, Lampaco Pasandalan, Dimaapao Bauteet.al. in Civil cases 2248 and 2277. The complaint which sought to expropriate certain specified lots situated at Limogao, Saguiaran, Lanao del Sur was for the purpose of the development of hydro-electric power and production of electricity as well as the erection to such subsidiary works and constructions as may be necessarily connected therewith. Both cases were jointly tried upon agreement of the parties. After a series of hearings were held, on 15 June 1979, a consolidated decision was rendered by the lower court, declaring and confirming that the lots mentioned and described in the complaints have entirely been lawfully condemned and expropriated by NAPOCOR, and ordering the latter to pay the

landowners certain sums of money as just compensation for their lands expropriated "with legal interest thereon until fully paid.

Issue: Whether, in the computation of the legal rate of interest on just compensation for expropriated lands, the rate applicable as legal interest is 6% (Article 2209 of the Civil Code) or 12% (Central Bank Circular 416). Held: This is evident not only from said circular but also from Presidential Decree 116, which amended Act 2655, otherwise known as the Usury Law. On the other hand, Article 2209 of the Civil Code applies to transactions requiring the payment of indemnities as damages, in connection with any delay in the performance of the obligation arising therefrom other than those covering loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits. Herein, the transaction involved is clearly not a loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits but expropriation of certain parcels of land for a public purpose, the payment of which is without stipulation regarding interest, and the interest adjudged by the trial court is in the nature of indemnity for damages. The legal interest required to be paid on the amount of just compensation for the properties expropriated is manifestly in the form of indemnity for damages for the delay in the payment thereof. Therefore, since the kind of interest involved in the joint judgment of the lower court sought to be enforced in this case is interest by way of damages, and not by way of earnings from loans, etc. Article 2209 of the Civil Code shall apply.