Facts:

The case involves Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. (collectively referred to as "petitioners") as the petitioners and the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) as the respondent. The events leading to this case began when the petitioners voluntarily offered to sell their agricultural lands to the government under Republic Act No. 6657, known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The LBP initially valued the properties at P165,484.47 per hectare for Apo Fruits and P201,929.97 per hectare for Hijo Plantation, which the petitioners rejected. Subsequently, the LBP made partial payments totaling P71,891,256.62, which the petitioners accepted. However, the petitioners filed complaints for just compensation with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) due to the LBP's undervaluation of their properties. After a prolonged legal battle, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City ruled in favor of the petitioners on September...

Facts:

Background of the Case

The petitioners, Apo Fruits Corporation (AFC) and Hijo Plantation, Inc. (HPI), voluntarily offered to sell their lands to the government under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) initially valued the properties at P165,484.47 per hectare, which AFC and HPI rejected. The LBP deposited partial payments totaling P71,891,256.62 before taking the lands in December 1996.

Legal Proceedings

AFC and HPI filed complaints for just compensation with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), but due to inaction, they later filed cases with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City. On September 25, 2001, the RTC ruled in favor of AFC and HPI, fixing just compensation at P1,383,179,000.00 and awarding 12% interest per annum from the time of taking until finality of the decision.

The Third Division of the Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's decision on February 6, 2007, but later deleted the 12% interest in its December 19, 2007 resolution. After entry of judgment on May 16, 2008, AFC and HPI filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the Court en banc denied on December 4, 2009.

Subsequent Motions

AFC and HPI filed a third motion for reconsideration, and on October 12, 2010, the Court en banc granted the motion, restoring the 12% interest. The LBP filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on November 23, 2010.

Issue:

1. Whether the LBP was guilty of delay in paying just compensation, warranting the imposition of 12% interest.
2. Whether the Court en banc erred in granting AFC and HPI's third motion for reconsideration, given that it was a prohibited motion under the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)