When government takes private property for public use, the Constitution guarantees one thing: just compensation.
But what exactly is “just”?
In Philippine jurisprudence, this question has sparked more than a century of debate. From the early 1900s to today’s agrarian and infrastructure cases, the Supreme Court has wrestled with one timeless principle — that fairness means equivalence.
From Payment to Parity
The power of eminent domain is one of the most profound expressions of state authority. It allows the government to acquire land for public welfare — roads, bridges, and social reform. Yet this power is tempered by an equally powerful right: that property owners must be made whole.
This idea is rooted not in economics alone, but in law and philosophy.
Roman jurists called it restitutio in integrum — restoring a person to their original condition. Over centuries, this became the principle of equivalence, the legal duty to return an equal value for what was taken.
In 1915, the Philippine Supreme Court expressed this in Manila Railroad Co. v. Velasquez:
“Compensation means an equivalent for the value of the property taken… it must be real, substantial, full, and ample.”
Those words have guided generations of expropriation cases — from the distribution of farmlands to the construction of expressways.
The Three Dimensions of Fairness
My research, titled “Restoring the Whole: Just Compensation in Philippine Agrarian and Right-of-Way Law ” shows how the Supreme Court has built an evolving framework for justice in takings. It rests on three interconnected dimensions:
1. Economic Equivalence
The amount must equal the true market or replacement value of the property.
In Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi (1974) and Pasay v. Arellano University (2025), the Court held that assessor’s values or zonal prices are not controlling — only credible, market-based evidence counts.
2. Temporal Equivalence
Justice delayed is value denied.
In Apo Fruits v. Land Bank (2010), the Court ruled that prompt payment is an element of just compensation. If payment is delayed, interest becomes a constitutional right, not a mere penalty.
3. Evidentiary Equivalence
Fairness requires truth.
Courts demand credible proof — not presumptions or formulas — to ensure that compensation reflects real economic conditions. As Mandaue Realty (1996) declared, valuation “cannot rest on speculation or administrative fiat.”
Together, these dimensions form the doctrine I call Judicial Equivalence:
the judiciary’s active role in ensuring that the owner’s loss equals the State’s gain.
Why This Matters
At stake is not merely money, but trust in justice.
When land is taken for reform or progress, owners must see that the law gives back its full worth. Otherwise, expropriation becomes confiscation by another name.
The Supreme Court’s modern rulings — from Small Landowners (1989) to Pasay v. Arellano (2025) — show a growing recognition that just compensation is a constitutional act of restoration, not a fiscal transaction. It ensures that progress does not trample property rights, and that social justice remains anchored in fairness.
Toward a Fairer Future
To strengthen this balance, the study proposes three reforms:
- Codify judicial standards into a single Expropriation Code reflecting modern jurisprudence.
- Create a registry of court-accredited appraisers to enhance valuation integrity.
- Integrate law and valuation education — because justice and economics should speak the same language.
The law must remember that fairness has a price — and that price is equivalence.
When the State takes, it must also give — fully, promptly, and truthfully.
Real Appraisal 