Quiz No.

12

Group 7
Abquiren, Illysa Jane T.
Crisostomo, Rafael Rufo B.
Daweg, Shamira Y.

1. Yes.

The law provides that the non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the
private landowner to recover possession of the expropriated lots, however, in cases
where the government failed to pay just compensation within five years from the finality
of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the
right to recover possession of their property. This is in consonance with the principle
that "the government cannot keep the property and dishonor the judgment". To be sure,
the five-year period limitation will encourage the government to pay just compensation
punctually. This is in keeping with justice and equity. After all, it is the duty of the
government, whenever it takes property from private persons against their will, to
facilitate the payment of just compensation.

In this case, Baldomero can successfully demand the return of the property to
him if the Government failed to pay just compensation within five years from the finality
if the judgment in the expropriation proceedings.

B. Yes.

In the case of Republic vs Gabriel, the following are the circumstances where a
respondent may compel the government to resell the property: a) if the property is
expropriated for a particular purpose with the condition that when the purpose is ended
or abandoned, the property shall return to its owner, then, the property is reacquired by
him. b) if there is no condition as aforesaid and the plaintiff acquires a fee simple title,
the property becomes the absolute property of the expropriator.

In this case, Baldomero may compel the government to re-sell the property back to him.

2. (a) Meaning of just compensation

Just compensation as defined in the case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs

Orilla, is constitutionally, the sum equivalent to the market value of the property,
broadly described as the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and
ordinary course of legal action and competition, or the fair value of the property as
between the one who receives and the one who desires to sell, it being fixed at the time
of the actual taking by the government. Just compensation is defined as the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. It has been
repeatedly stressed by this Court that the true measure is not the takers gain but the
owners loss.

The word just is used to modify the meaning of the word compensation to convey
the idea that the equivalent to be given for the property to be taken shall be real,
substantial, full, and ample.

(b) Nature of Just Compensation

As held in the case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Domingo, GR No.
157206, 27 June 2008, in sum, in determining just compensation, the cost of the
acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use
income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment
made by government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits
contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the government to the property
as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing
institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its
valuation.

(c) Basis of Just Compensation

Under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that in determining just

compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties,
its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, tax declarations,
and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered. The social and
economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the
Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from
any government financing institutions on the said land shall be considered as additional
factors to determine its valuation.

3. Yes.

As was held in some cases, the need for prompt payment and the necessity of the
payment of interest to compensate for any delay in the payment of compensation for
property already taken. The Court fixed the applicable interest rate at 12% per annum,
computed from the time the property was taken until the full amount of just
compensation was paid, in order to eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and
inflation of the value of the currency over time. Therefore, interest may impose in the
grant of just compensation.

4. No.
 As held in the case of FORFOM Dev. Corp. vs. PNR, it is clear that recovery of
possession of the property by the landowner can no longer be allowed on the grounds of
estoppel and, more importantly, of public policy which imposes upon the public utility
the obligation to continue its services to the public. The non-filing of the case for
expropriation will not necessarily lead to the return of the property to the landowner.
The remedy left to the landowner is the right of just compensation.

Therefore, the land may not motu proprio revert to the land owner if supposedly
after "taking", the case of expropriation is not filed.

5. The difference of Primary Entry Book from register book is that a primary entry
book shall contain, among other particulars, the entry number, names of the parties,
nature of the document, and the date, hour and minute it was presented. The recording
shall be effected by an annotation on the registration book after the same shall have
been entered in the primary entry book. After recording, the Register of Deeds shall
endorse on the original of the instrument the file number and the date as well as the
hour and minute when the instrument was received, returning to the registrant the
duplicate of the instrument with a certification that he has recorded the same. The
primary entry book shall be entered first before annotation on the registration book. The
annotation on the Registration book results to the recording of the said instruments
dealing with unregistered land.