G.R. No. 164195 - Apo Fruits Corporation vs. Land Bank of the Philippines

Apo Fruits Corporation (AFC) owned 640.3483 hectares.
Hijo Plantation, Inc. (HPI) owned 805.5308 hectares.
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) acted as the government financial agent in the agrarian reform acquisition.

On October 12, 1995, AFC and HPI filed Voluntary Offer to Sell applications with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
On October 16, 1996, DAR’s Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer notified AFC and HPI of land acquisition and valuation at P165,484.47 per hectare; AFC’s land valued at P86,900,925.88 and HPI’s at P164,478,178.14.
AFC and HPI rejected the DAR valuations as very low.
DAR requested LBP to deposit P26,409,549.86 to AFC’s account and P45,481,706.76 to HPI’s account; the petitioners withdrew those amounts.
Titles were cancelled and new titles in the name of the Republic of the Philippines were issued on December 9, 1996.

On February 14, 1997, AFC and HPI filed separate petitions for determination of just compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
DARAB failed to act for more than three years.
AFC and HPI filed separate complaints for determination and payment of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City, acting as a Special Agrarian Court (cases later consolidated).

On September 25, 2001, the RTC fixed just compensation for 1,338.6027 hectares at P1,383,179,000.00, awarded interest at prevailing market rates from taking until paid, and granted attorney’s fees.
LBP moved for reconsideration; on December 5, 2001 the RTC modified interest to 12% per annum from time complaint was filed until finality.
The Third Division of this Court, in its Decision of February 6, 2007, affirmed the RTC decision.
On motion for reconsideration the Third Division issued a Resolution of December 19, 2007 deleting the 12% interest on the balance and deleting attorney’s fees, reasoning that LBP deposited “pertinent amounts” within fourteen months after filing with the RTC and significant sums had already been collected by petitioners.
All parties filed motions for reconsideration; the Court denied them in its April 30, 2008 Resolution; Entry of Judgment followed on May 16, 2008.

On May 28, 2008, AFC and HPI filed: (a) Motion for Leave to File and Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration; (b) Second Motion for Reconsideration (limited to denial of legal interest and attorney’s fees); and (c) Motion to Refer the Second Motion to the Court En Banc.
The Third Division admitted the second motion and referred the case to the Court En Banc; the Court En Banc accepted the referral on September 8, 2009.
On December 4, 2009, the Court En Banc denied the petitioners’ second motion for reconsideration on the grounds of the immutability of final decisions and, on the merits, because the petitioners caused delay and because LBP had deposited pertinent amounts within fourteen months; the En Banc reaffirmed the del...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the doctrine of immutability of final judgments barred reopening the Court’s December 19, 2007 and December 4, 2009 resolutions.
Whether the petitioners established special, compelling or transcendental circumstances or substantial injustice sufficient to justify recall of the Entry of Judgment and reexamination on a second motion for reconsideration.

Whether petitioners are entitled to legal interest on the unpaid balance of just compensation.
Whether interest runs from the date of taking (December 9, 1996) or from the finality of judgment.
Whether the established jurisprudential rate of 12% interest per annum applies to agrarian reform expropriations and is subject to equitable reduction.