Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PDF Apo Fruits Corporation V Land Bank of The Philippines - Compress
PDF Apo Fruits Corporation V Land Bank of The Philippines - Compress
(2) Whether or not the standard of “transcendental importance” cannot justify the
negation of the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment and the abrogation of
a vested right in favor of the Government that respondent LBP represents.
(3) Whether or not the Honorable Court ignored the deliberations of the 1986
Constitutional Commission showing that just compensation for expropriated
agricultural property must be viewed in the context of social justice.
Civil Law:
(1) Whether or not the rules on second motion for reconsideration by the
Supreme Court should be strictly complied with by a vote of two-thirds of its
actual membership.
(2) Whether or not the
the holding of oral arguments would still serve its purpose.
(3) Whether or not the Motion for Leave to Intervene and to admit for
Reconsideration in-Intervention from the Office of the Solicitor General may still
be granted.
RULINGS:
RULINGS:
That the issues posed by this case are of transcendental importance is not hard
to discern from these discussions. A constitutional limitation, guaranteed under
no less than the all-important Bill of Rights, is at stake in this case: how can
compensation in an eminent domain case be “just” when the payment for the
compensation for property already taken has been unreasonably delayed? To
claim, as the assailed Resolution does, that only private interest is involved in
this case is to forget that an expropriation involves the government as a
necessary actor. It forgets, too, that under eminent domain, the constitutional
limits or standards apply to government who carries the burden of showing that
these standards have been met. Thus, to simply dismiss the case as a private
interest matter is an extremely shortsighted view that this Court should not leave
uncorrected.
xxxx
More than the stability of our jurisprudence, the matter before us is of
transcendental importance to the nation because of the subject matter involved –
agrarian reform, a societal objective of that the government has unceasingly
sought to achieve in the past half century.
From this perspective, the court demonstrated that the higher interests of justice
are duly served.
(3) Yes. In fact, while a proposal was made during the deliberations of the 1986
Constitutional Commission to give a lower market price per square meter for
larger tracts of land, the Commission never intended to give agricultural
landowners less than just compensation in the expropriation of property for
agrarian reform purposes.
[N]othing is inherently contradictory in the public purpose of land reform and the
right of landowners to receive just compensation for the expropriation by the
State of their properties. That the petitioners are corporations that used to own
large tracts of land should not be taken against them. As Mr. Justice Isagani Cruz
eloquently put it:
[S]ocial justice – or any justice for that matter – is for the deserving, whether he
bestores
a millionaire
This website data such asin his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of
cookies to enable essentialdoubt,
reasonable site we are called upon to tilt the balance in favor of the poor, to
functionality, as well as marketing,
whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion. But never
personalization, and analytics. You
is it justified to prefer the poor simply because they are poor, or to reject the rich
may change your settings at any time
simply
or accept the defaultbecause
settings. they are rich, for justice must always be served, for poor and rich
alike, according to the mandate of the law.
Civil Law
Privacy Policy
Yes.
Marketing In the present case, it is undisputed that the government took the
petitioners’ lands on December 9, 1996; the petitioners only received full
Personalization
payment of the just compensation due on May 9, 2008. This circumstance, by
Analytics
itself, already confirms the unconscionable delay in the payment of just
compensation.
Save Accept All
An added dimension is the impact of the delay delay.. One impact – as pointed out
above – is the loss of income the landowners suffered. Another impact that the
LBP now glosses over is the income that the LBP earned from the sizeable sum
it withheld for twelve long years. From this perspective, the unaccounted-for LBP
income is unjust enrichment in its favor and an inequitable loss to the
landowners. This situation was what the Court essentially addressed when it
awarded the petitioners 12% interest.
Remedial Law
(1) No. When the Court ruled on the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by a
vote of 12 Members (8 for the grant of the motion and 4 against), the Court ruled
on the merits of the petitioners’ motion. This ruling complied in all respects with
the Constitution requirement for the votes that should support a ruling of the
Court. Admittedly, the Court did not make any express prior ruling accepting or
disallowing the petitioners’ motion as required by Section 3, Rule 15 of the
Internal Rules. The Court, however, did not thereby contravene its own rule on
2nd motions for reconsideration; since 12 Members of the Court opted to
entertain the motion by voting for and against it, the Court simply did not register
an express vote, but instead demonstrated its compliance with the rule through
the participation by no less than 12 of its 15 Members.
Members. Viewed in this light, the
Court cannot even be claimed to have suspended the effectiveness of its rule on
2nd motions for reconsideration; it simply complied with this rule in a form other
than by express and separate voting .
(2) No. The submissions of the parties, as well as the records of the case, have
already provided this Court with enough arguments and particulars to rule on the
issues involved. Oral arguments at this point would be superfluous and would
serve no useful purpose.
(3) No. The interest of the Republic, for whom the OSG speaks, has been amply
protected through the direct action of petitioner LBP – the government
instrumentality created by law to provide timely and adequate financial support in
allstores
phases involved in the execution of needed agrarian reform. The OSG had
This website data such as
cookies to enable
everyessential site
opportunity to intervene through the long years that this case had been
functionality, as well as marketing,
pending but it chose to show its hand only at this very late stage when its
personalization, and analytics. You
may change presence
your settingscan
at anyonly
time serve to delay the final disposition of this case. The
arguments
or accept the the OSG presents, furthermore, are issues that this Court has
default settings.
considered in the course of resolving this case. Thus, every reason exists to
deny the intervention prayed for.
Privacy Policy
Marketing
Personalization
Analytics