CA orders gov’t to pay P28.48 billion to Hacienda Luisita

The Court of Appeals (CA) has ordered the government to pay Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) P28.48 billion as just compensation for 4,500 hectares of agricultural land, which was previously ordered by the Supreme Court to be distributed to farmers. — File Photo/MARIANNE BERMUDEZ

MANILA, Philippines–The Court of Appeals (CA) has ordered the government to pay Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) P28.48 billion as just compensation for 4,500 hectares of agricultural land, which was previously ordered by the Supreme Court to be distributed to farmers.

READ: Hacienda Luisita must be paid, SC orders gov’t

In its ruling, the CA Special 12th Division said the findings of the Regional Trial Court, acting as Special Agrarian Court (RTC-SAC),  are misplaced “contrary to existing evidence and applicable jurisprudence on the matter.”

The appeals court is referring to the RTC-SAC Branch 63 ruling affirming the P304 million valuation fixed by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and adopted by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), as just compensation for the lands owned by HLI, plus P167.4 million as interest.

The CA stated that the RTC-SAC failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 17 of Republic Act 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), in determining the just compensation to which the Cojuangco family-owned HLI was entitled for the taking of its property.

The said provision states that just compensation should be determined by “the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors, shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm workers and by the Government to the property, as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land, shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.”

However, the CA noted that the RTC-SAC merely adopted the findings of the DAR, which admitted that they did not consider the financial statement submitted to them by HLI.

“To this Court, just compensation was not correctly assessed and determined by the RTC-SAC as what should be paid to the landowner in exchange for the property talken shall be real, substantial, full, ample, just and fair, with due consideration to the facts enumerated under Section 17 of RA 6657,” the appeals court said.

It pointed out that HLI should be “compensated fairly and fully in accordance with the equivalent loss sustained by it as a landowner.”

“Thus, grounded on the Court’s judicial function to determine the correct amount of just compensation, we are convinced that petitioner is entitled to additional amounts as just compensation,” it added.

The court ordered the government to pay the total amount of P28,488,944,278.71 as just compensation as of 30 April 2025, without prejudice to the accrual of interest until fully paid.

Named as respondents in HLI’s petition for review were the DAR and LBP.

In 2011, the high court ordered the direct distribution of the vast sugar plantation to more than 6,000 farmer-beneficiaries.

The SC said just compensation for HLI’s land should be computed based on the land valuation in 1989, the year the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) approved its stock distribution plan.

The high court rejected HLI’s argument that the “taking” should be reckoned from the finality of the Court’s decision, or at the very least from January 2, 2006, when the DAR issued the notice of coverage following PARC’s resolution.

Following the high court ruling, the DAR-Adjudication Board (DARAB) issued a decision on Jan. 30, 2015, adopting and affirming LBP’s valuation of P304.03 million as just compensation. DARAB denied HLIs’ claims for additional compensation and interest, prompting it to take the case to the RTC-SAC, which ruled in favor of the government.

HLI then took the case to the CA, which ruled in its favor.

The decision was written by Associate Justice Raymond Reynold Lauigan and concurred in by Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Ferdinand Baylon./coa