APO Fruits Corp. vs. CA G.R. No. 164195 FACTS: On October 12, 1995, APO Fruits Corp.

(AFC) and Hijo Plantation Inc. (HPI) offered to sell their duly registered 5 parcels of agricultural located in Tagum, Davao, to the government. The application was referred to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) for initial valuation. Thereafter, AFC and HPI received from the DARs Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) a notice of land acquisition and valuation of the properties placed at P86.9M and P164.5M respectively, which the former found unreasonably low and inadequate as just compensation. AFC rejected the valuation and applied for the shifting of the mode of acquisition from a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) to Voluntary Land Transfer. HPI also rejected the valuation of its properties. Owing to these rejections, DAR requested LBP to deposit the amounts equivalent to their valuations in the accounts of AFC and HPI, and both AFC and HPI withdrew the amount in cash. The DAR PARO then directed the Register of Deeds to cancel the TCTs of AFC and HPI to said properties and to issue a new one in the name of the Republic of the Phils. After the issuance, the ROD issued TCTs and Certificates of Land Ownership Award to qualified farmerbeneficiaries. On February 14, 1997, AFC and HPI filed separate complaints for determination of just compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board. Despite lapse of more than 3 years from filing of the complaints, DARAB failed to render a decision on the land valuation. Hence, 2 complaints for determination and payment of just compensation were filed by AFC and HPI, which were subsequently consolidated. After hearing, the trial court fixed the just compensation of the 1,338.6027 hectares of land and standing crops owned by AFC and HPI at P1.38 billion to be paid jointly and severally to plaintiffs by the DAR and LBP thru its Land Valuation Office. LBP filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the trial court based its valuation on the value of residential and industrial lands in the area, forgetting that the lands involved are agricultural. ISSUE: Whether or not plaintiffs right to just compensation has been violated. HELD: Plaintiffs right to just compensation has been violated. While eminent domain lies as one of the inherent powers of the state, there is no requirement that it undertake a prolonged procedure, or that the payment of the private owner be protracted as far as practicable. It is not controverted that this case started way back on 12 October 1995, when AFC and HPI voluntarily offered to sell the properties to the DAR. In view of the failure of the parties to agree on the valuation of the properties, the Complaint for Determination of Just Compensation was filed before the DARAB on 14 February 1997. Despite the lapse of more than three years from the filing of the complaint, the DARAB failed to render a decision on the valuation of the land. Meantime, the titles over the properties of AFC and HPI had already been cancelled and in their place a new certificate of title was issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, even as far back as 9 December 1996. A period of almost 10 years has lapsed. For this reason, there is no dispute that this case has truly languished for a long period of time, the delay being mainly attributable to both official inaction and indecision, particularly on the determination of the amount of just compensation, to the detriment of AFC and HPI, which to date, have yet to be fully compensated for the properties which are already in the hands of farmer-beneficiaries, who, due to the lapse of time, may have already converted or sold the land awarded to them. To allow the taking of landowners properties, and to leave them empty-handed while government withholds compensation is undoubtedly oppressive. The concept of just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" inasmuch as the property owner is being made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss. 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 measure is not the takers gain but the owners loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample.