7. MCIAA VS. LOZADA, SR., G.R. NO.

176625, FEBRUARY 25, 2010

FACTS: Subject of this case is a lot (Lot No. 88) located in Lahug, Cebu City. Its original owner was Anastacio
Deiparine when the same was subject to expropriation proceedings, initiated by Republic, represented by the
then Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), for the expansion and improvement of the Lahug Airport. During
the pendency of the expropriation proceedings, respondent Bernardo L. Lozada, Sr. acquired Lot No. 88 from
Deiparine. The trial court ruled for the Republic and ordered the latter to pay Lozada the fair market value of
the lot. However, the projected improvement and expansion plan of the old Lahug Airport, however, was not
pursued. The plaintiff-respondents initiated a complaint for the recovery of possession and reconveyance of
ownership the subject lot. On the other hand, the petitioners asked for the immediate dismissal of the
complaint. They specifically denied that the Government had made assurances to reconvey Lot No. 88 to
respondents in the event that the property would no longer be needed for airport operations. Petitioners
instead asserted that the judgment of condemnation was unconditional, and respondents were, therefore, not
entitled to recover the expropriated property notwithstanding non-use or abandonment thereof. The lower
court ruled for herein plaintiff-respondents, which decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In this
petition, the petitioners argued that the judgment in Civil Case No. R-1881 was absolute and unconditional,
giving title in fee simple to the Republic.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject property must be RETURNED to the Republic?
RULING: NO.
More particularly, with respect to the element of public use, the expropriator should commit to use the
property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition for expropriation filed, failing which, it should file
another petition for the new purpose. If not, it is then incumbent upon the expropriator to return the said
property to its private owner, if the latter desires to reacquire the same. Otherwise, the judgment of
expropriation suffers an intrinsic flaw, as it would lack one indispensable element for the proper exercise of the
power of eminent domain, namely, the particular public purpose for which the property will be devoted.
Accordingly, the private property owner would be denied due process of law, and the judgment would violate
the property owners right to justice, fairness, and equity.

8. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES, G.R. NO.

172551, JANUARY 15, 2014.
FACTS: Respondent Yatco Agricultural Enterprises (Yatco) was the registered of owner of a 27-hectare parcel
of agricultural land (property) in Calamba, Laguna. On April 30, 1999, the government placed the property
under the coverage if its Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) valued the property at P1,126,132.89. Yatco did not find the valuation acceptable and thus elevated the
matter to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), which
then conducted summary administrative proceedings for the determination of just compensation. The PARAD
valued the property at P16,543,800.00, using the property current market value. LBP did not move to
reconsider the PARAD ruling. Instead it filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, San Pablo City, acting
as a Special Agrarian Court (RTC-SAC), a petition for the judicial determination of just compensation. RTCSAC fixed the just compensation for the property at P200 per square meter based on the RTC branch 35 and
36. RTC-SAC did not give weight to the LBP evidence in justifying its valuation, pointing out that the LBP failed
to prove that it complied with the prescribed procedure and failed to consider the valuation in the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The CA dismissed LBP appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC-SACs valuation is proper?
RULING: NO.

Just compensation; determination of just compensation is fundamentally a judicial function. In the exercise of
the Courts essentially judicial function of determining just compensation, the RTC-SACs are not granted
unlimited discretion and must consider and apply the enumerated factors in R.A. No. 6657 and the DAR
formula (in AO 5-98) that reflect these factors. These factors and formula provide the uniform framework or
structure for the computation of the just compensation for a property subject to agrarian reform. When acting
within the parameters set by the law itself, the RTC-SACs, however, are not strictly bound to apply the DAR
formula to its minute detail, particularly when faced with situations that do not warrant the formulas strict
application; they may, in the exercise of their discretion, relax the formulas application to fit the factual
situations before them. They must, however, clearly explain the reason for any deviation from the factors and
formula that the law and the rules have provided. This case must be REMAND Agrarian Case No. SP-064(02)
to the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 30, for its determination of just compensation under the
terms of Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 and Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 5,
series of 1998, as amended.
Just compensation; fair market value of the expropriated property is determined as of the time of taking. The
time of taking refers to that time when the State deprived the landowner of the use and benefit of his
property, as when the State acquires title to the property or as of the filing of the complaint, per Section 4, Rule
67 of the Rules of Court.
Private lands acquired for agrarian reform; primary jurisdiction. The Land Bank of the Philippines is primarily
charged with determining land valuation and compensation for all private lands acquired for agrarian reform
purposes. But this determination is only preliminary. The landowner may still take the matter of just
compensation to the court for final adjudication. Thus, we clarify and reiterate: the original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation under R.A. No. 6657 rests with the
RTC-SAC. But, in its determination, the RTC-SAC must take into consideration the factors laid down by law
and the pertinent DAR regulations.

9. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION VS. SPS. FLORIMON V. LLETO, ET AL., G.R. NOS.
169957 & 171558, JULY 11, 2012.
FACTS: National Power Corporation (NPC) filed a complaint, which was subsequently amended, seeking to
expropriate certain parcels of land in Bulacan, in connection with its Northwestern Luzon Transmission Line
project.To determine the issue of just compensation, the RTC constituted a team of commissioners.
Heirs of Sofia Mangahas and the NPC filed with the RTC a jointly executed compromise agreement where they
agreed that NPC would acquire 13,855 square meters of the 95,445 square meter property owned by the Heirs
of Sofia Mangahas. In turn, the NPC would pay the Heirs of Sofia Mangahas the total amount of P3,463,750.00
as just compensation for the property, with an assessed value of P250.00 per square meter. The RTC found the
compromise agreement to be proper, and rendered a partial decision approving it.
The CA DIRECTED the trial court to compute the just compensation of the other defendants properties based
on the classification of each, in accordance with the schedule of fair market values of the National Power
Corporation for the Northwestern Luzon Transmission Line, less the initial fees paid to the defendants as
easement fees or tower occupancy fees.
On April 6, 2006, Danilo Brillo, et al., filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Court, docketed as G.R.
No. 171558, assailing the CAs instruction to the RTC to apply the schedule of fair market values attached to
NPC Board Resolution No. 97-246, to determine just compensation for their lands.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTCs valuation is proper?

RULING: NO.
It is apparent from this RTC explanation that Commissioner Tayag and Commissioner Villacorta based their
recommendation for just compensation of all the properties in question solely on the value fixed in the
compromise agreement between the NPC and the Heirs of Sofia Mangahas. But in accepting this
recommendation, the RTC failed to take into consideration the fact that the property subject of
the compromise agreement is located in Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan, while the other
properties subject of the RTCs decision are located in other municipalities in Bulacan.
Even worse, the commissioners recommended valuation is not supported by any corroborative evidence, such
as sworn declarations of realtors in the area concerned and tax declarations or zonal valuation from the Bureau
of Internal Revenue. It does not even appear from the records that the commissioners conducted any ocular
inspections to determine the location, nature, character, condition, and other specific features of the
expropriated lands that should have been taken into account before making their recommendation.
Although the determination of just compensation lies within the trial courts discretion, it should not be done
arbitrarily or capriciously. The decision of the trial court must be based on all established rules, correct legal
principles, and competent evidence. The courts are proscribed from basing their judgments on speculations
and surmises.
In light of the foregoing, we find that the trial court arbitrarily fixed the amount of just compensation due the
landowners at P250.00 per square meter. Thus, the Court has no alternative but to remand the case to the
court of origin for the proper determination of just compensation.
However, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 72723 dated September
30, 2005, insofar as it held that the compromise agreement between the National Power Corporation and the
Heirs of Sofia Mangahas is valid.

OUTLINE: Eminent domain; determination of just compensation. We also declared in National Power
Corporation v. Purefoods Corporation [G.R. No. 160725, September 12, 2008] that Section 3A of Republic Act
No. 6395, as amended (which provides a fixed formula in the computation of just compensation in cases of
acquisition of easements of right of way) is not binding upon this Court. This is in keeping with the established
rule that the determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function.