REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION (NIA), VS. RURAL BANK OF KABACAN, INC., LITTIE SARAH A. AGDEPPA, LEOSA NANETTE AGDEPPA AND MARCELINO VIERNES, MARGARITA TABOADA, PORTIA CHARISMA RUTH ORTIZ, REPRESENTED BY LINA ERLINDA A. ORTIZ AND MARIO ORTIZ, JUAN M

Ruling

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW of all the foregoing considerations, the court finds and so holds that the commissioners have arrived at and were able to determine the fair market value of the properties. The court adopts their findings, and orders: That 18,930 square meters of the lands owned by the defendants is hereby expropriated in favor of the Republic of the Philippines through the National Irrigation Administration; That the NIA shall pay to the defendants the amount of ?1,230,450 for the 18,930 square meters expropriated in proportion to the areas so expropriated; That the NIA shall pay to the defendant-intervenors, owners of Lot No. 3080, the sum of P5,128,375.50, representing removed earthfill; That the NIA shall pay to the defendants, owners of Lot No. 3039, the sum of P1,929,611.30 representing earthfill; To pay to the defendants the sum of P60,000 for the destroyed G-melina trees (1 year old); To pay to the defendants the sum of P3,786,000.00 for the 4-year old G-melina trees; That NIA shall pay to the defendants the sum of P2,460.00 for the coconut trees; That all payments intended for the defendant Rural Bank of Kabacan shall be given to the defendants and intervenors who have already acquired ownership over the land titled in the name of the Bank. [21] NIA, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the Decision of the RTC to the CA, which docketed the case as CA-G.R. CV No. 65196. NIA assailed the trial court's adoption of the Commissioners' Report, which had determined the just compensation to be awarded to the owners of the lands expropriated. NIA also impugned as error the RTC's inclusion for compensation of the excavated soil from the expropriated properties. Finally, it disputed the trial court's Order to deliver the payment intended for the Rural Bank of Kabacan to defendants-intervenors, who allegedly acquired ownership of the land still titled in the name of the said rural bank. [22] The Ruling of the Court of Appeals On 12 August 2008, the CA through its Twenty-First (21 st ) Division, promulgated a Decision [23] affirming with modification the RTC Decision. It ruled that the committee tasked to determine the fair market value of the properties and improvements for the purpose of arriving at the just compensation, properly performed its function. The appellate court noted that the committee members had conducted ocular inspections of the area surrounding the expropriated properties and made their recommendations based on official documents from the BIR with regard to the zonal valuations of the affected properties. [24] The CA observed that, as far as the valuation of the improvements on the properties was concerned, the committee members took into consideration the provincial assessor's appraisal of the age of the trees, their productivity and the inputs made. [25] The appellate court further noted that despite the Manifestation of NIA that it be allowed to present evidence to rebut the recommendation of the commit