[EMINENT DOMAIN, in general] 2.

Yes, SC found no proof of evidence of transfer of

Republic of the Philippines represented by The
National Irrigation Administration (NIA), Petitioners,
vs.
Rural Bank of Kabacan, INC, Respondents.
G.R. No. 185124
January 15, 2012
Sereno, J.
FACTS
Nia filed with the RTC of Kabacan a complaint for
expropriation of a portion of three parcels of land for
its Malitubog-Marigadao project. One of which is LOT
3080 registered under the Rural Bank of Kabacan
which the respondents alleged that they were joint
tenants-cultivators of the said land. The committee
formed by the RTC determined the fair market value
of the expropriated properties and included the
value of the soil excavated.
NIA through the OSG appealed the RTC’s decision on
its expropriation of just compensation and the
inclusion of the value of the soil excavated from the
properties in the just compensation. CA affirmed
RTC’s decision however, deleted the inclusion of the
value of soil excavated. CA also recognized
defendants-intervenors as new owners of LOT 3080
based on the non-participation by Rural Bank of
Kabacan in the expropriation proceedings and the
latter’s Manifestation that it no longer owned Lot No.
3080.
ownership of Lot No. 3080 from its registered
owner, the Rural Bank of Kabacan, to
defendants-intervenors. As it is, the TCT is still
registered in the name of the said rural bank. It is
not disputed that the bank did not participate in
the expropriation proceedings, and that it
manifested that it no longer owned Lot No. 3080.
The trial court should have nevertheless required
the rural bank and the defendants-intervenors to
show proof or evidence pertaining to the
conveyance of the subject lot. The court cannot
rely on mere inference, considering that the
payment of just compensation is intended to be
awarded solely owner based on the latter’s
proof of ownership.
FALLO
WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The 12
August 2008 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 65196,
awarding just compensation to the defendants as
owners of the expropriated properties and deleting
the inclusion of the value of the excavated soil, is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The case is
hereby REMANDED to the trial court for the
reception of evidence to establish the present
owner of Lot No. 3080. No pronouncements as to
cost.
SO ORDERED.

NIA now comes to this court via petition for review on

Certiorari under Rule 45.

ISSUE/S

1. Whether or not CA erred in affirming RTC’s

finding of just compensation of the land and the
improvements thereon.
2. Whether or not CA erred in ruling that the
payment of just compensation under LOT 3080
should be made to defendants-intervenors.

RULING

1. NO. just compensation is defined as the full and

fair equivalent of the property taken from its
owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the
taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is
used to intensify the meaning of the word
"compensation" and to convey thereby the idea
that the equivalent to be rendered for the
property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full
and ample. Thus, SC affirms the appellate court’s
ruling that the commissioners properly
determined the just compensation to be
awarded to the landowners whose properties
were expropriated by petitioner. It also
concluded that NIA, as the new owner of the
affected properties, had the right to enjoy and
make use of the property, including the
excavated soil,