Home / Current Issue / Paper 1716142
Judicial Realization of Just Compensation: A Doctrinal–Institutional Analysis of Agrarian and Right-Of-Way Expropriation in Philippine Law
Subject area: Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities · Area of research: Law
DOI: https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I10-1716142
Abstract
This study examines the determination of just compensation in Philippine law through a doctrinal–institutional analysis of agrarian reform (CARP) and right-of-way (ROW) expropriation. While doctrine establishes that just compensation is a judicial function grounded in fair market value and the time-of-taking rule, valuation processes vary across legal regimes. Using thirty-six (36) Supreme Court decisions drawn from a larger corpus of approximately 150 cases, the study identifies patterns in valuation practices and institutional design. The findings reveal a stable doctrinal foundation but a pronounced divergence in institutional design, demonstrating that the realization of just compensation is contingent not on legal standards alone but on the mechanisms through which valuation is operationalized. Agrarian reform cases exhibit a predominantly adversarial, party-driven model, whereas right-of-way expropriation relies on commissioner-assisted processes that institutionalize technical expertise—reflected in the universal use of commissioners in expropriation cases (100%) compared to their near absence in agrarian cases (6%). Evaluated against international benchmarks under the Food and Agriculture Organization Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT), the results indicate fragmented compliance within a single jurisdiction, with agrarian regimes aligning more closely with substantive valuation requirements and expropriation regimes exhibiting stronger procedural safeguards. These findings suggest that valuation systems do not uniformly internalize international standards but instead distribute compliance across institutional domains.
Keywords
Just Compensation; Eminent Domain; CARP; Right-of-Way; Judicial Realization; Valuation; VGGT
References
[1] Books & Academic Literature
[2] Alterman, Rachelle, Takings International: A Comparative Perspective on Land Use Regulations and Compensation Rights (February 12, 2010). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2175149
[3] Coase, R.H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44. http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/tsc220/hallam/Coase.pdf https://doi.org/10.1086/466560
[4] Epstein, R. A. (1985). Takings: Private property and the power of eminent domain. Harvard University Press.
[5] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2012). Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. FAO.
[6] Miceli, T. J. (2011). The economic theory of eminent domain: Private property, public use, and just compensation. Cambridge University Press.DOI: 10.1561/0700000025
[7] North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
[8] Tagliarino, N. K. (2017). The status of national legal frameworks for valuing compensation for expropriated land: An analysis using the VGGT. Land Use Policy, 67, 467–479. https://doi.org/10.3390/land6020037
[9] World Bank. (2016). Land acquisition and involuntary resettlement sourcebook: Planning and implementation in development projects. World Bank Publications.
[10] 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 9.
[11] Republic Act No. 6657 (1988).
[12] Republic Act No. 9700 (2009).
[13] Republic Act No. 8974 (2000).
[14] Republic Act No. 10752 (2016).
[15] Republic Act No. 12001 (2023).
[16] Rules of Court.
[17] Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay.
[18] Republic v. Sandoval.
[19] Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi.
[20] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals.
[21] National Power Corporation v. Spouses Saludares.
[22] National Transmission Corporation v. Lacson-De Leon.
[23] Republic v. Ropa Development Corporation.
[24] Evergreen Manufacturing Corporation v. Republic.
[25] Philippine Institutional / Policy Sources
[26] Department of Agrarian Reform. (1998). Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1998.
[27] Land Bank of the Philippines. (2015). Status report on landowner compensation.
[28] Philippine Statistics Authority. (2023). Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES).
How to cite this paper
@article{1716142,
author = {Augusto B. Agosto},
title = {Judicial Realization of Just Compensation: A Doctrinal–Institutional Analysis of Agrarian and Right-Of-Way Expropriation in Philippine Law},
journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
year = {2026},
volume = {9},
number = {10},
pages = {1089-1105},
issn = {2456-8880},
url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1716142.pdf},
abstract = {This study examines the determination of just compensation in Philippine law through a doctrinal–institutional analysis of agrarian reform (CARP) and right-of-way (ROW) expropriation. While doctrine establishes that just compensation is a judicial function grounded in fair market value and the time-of-taking rule, valuation processes vary across legal regimes. Using thirty-six (36) Supreme Court decisions drawn from a larger corpus of approximately 150 cases, the study identifies patterns in valuation practices and institutional design. The findings reveal a stable doctrinal foundation but a pronounced divergence in institutional design, demonstrating that the realization of just compensation is contingent not on legal standards alone but on the mechanisms through which valuation is operationalized. Agrarian reform cases exhibit a predominantly adversarial, party-driven model, whereas right-of-way expropriation relies on commissioner-assisted processes that institutionalize technical expertise—reflected in the universal use of commissioners in expropriation cases (100%) compared to their near absence in agrarian cases (6%). Evaluated against international benchmarks under the Food and Agriculture Organization Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT), the results indicate fragmented compliance within a single jurisdiction, with agrarian regimes aligning more closely with substantive valuation requirements and expropriation regimes exhibiting stronger procedural safeguards. These findings suggest that valuation systems do not uniformly internalize international standards but instead distribute compliance across institutional domains.},
keywords = {Just Compensation; Eminent Domain; CARP; Right-of-Way; Judicial Realization; Valuation; VGGT},
month = {April},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I10-1716142}
}