SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235933. February 5, 2018.]
NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES [NGCP], petitioner, vs.JOSELIN P. MARCIAL-CALILUNG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 February 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 235933 (National Grid Corporation of the Philippines [NGCP] v. Joselin P. Marcial-Calilung)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the November 28, 2017 Amended Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 107528 for failure of petitioner National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in fixing the just compensation for the 13,465.21 square meter (sq. m.) subject portion at P268.88/sq. m.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the amount of P268.88/sq. m. fixed by the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Pampanga, Branch 58 (RTC) in its July 1, 2015 Decision 2 as the just compensation for the subject portion is proper because it considered the classification and use for which the property is suited, the property's location and its proximity to the town proper, the Bureau of Internal Revenue's zonal valuation, as well as the values recommended by local banks, real estate entities, and an appraisal firm, which are consistent with the relevant standards 3 provided under the law 4 and existing jurisprudence. 5 Besides, factual issues pertaining to the valuation of the expropriated property are generally beyond the pale of review under a Rule 45 petition, unless the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures, 6 or other recognized exceptions, 7 which do not obtain in this case.
Moreover, the imposition of legal interest is warranted considering the settled rule that the payment of just compensation for the expropriated property amounts to an effective forbearance on the part of the State. 8 However, the Court deems it proper to correct the award of legal interest on the unpaid balance of the just compensation of P2,254,204.66 to conform with prevailing jurisprudence, 9 which shall be computed at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of taking on February 29, 2008 (i.e., when the National Transmission Corporation, petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, was placed in actual possession of the subject portion) 10 up to June 30, 2013, and at 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of the decision. Thereafter, the compounded amount due shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum until full satisfaction. 11 aScITE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 44-51. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Renato C. Francisco concurring.
2.Id. at 52-64. Penned by Assisting Judge Omar T. Viola.
3. Section 5 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8974 provides:
SEC. 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of Expropriation Proceedings or Negotiated Sale. — In order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the court may consider, among other well-established factors, the following relevant standards:
(a) The classification and use for which the property is suited;
(b) The developmental costs for improving the land;
(c) The value declared by the owners;
(d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity;
(e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of certain improvements on the land and for the value of improvements thereon;
(f) The size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land;
(g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary evidence presented; and
(h) Such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to have sufficient funds to acquire similarly-situated lands of approximate areas as those required from them by the government, and thereby rehabilitate themselves as early as possible.
4. Under Section 2 (d) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 8974, projects related to "power generation, transmission and distribution" are national infrastructure projects covered by the law. Expropriation proceedings for national infrastructure projects are, thus, governed by Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and RA 8974. See National Power Corporation v. Posada, 755 Phil. 613, 623 (2015).
5.National Power Corporation v. Marasigan, G.R. No. 220367, November 20, 2017; National Power Corporation v. Asoque, G.R. No. 172507, September 14, 2016, 802 SCRA 582, 613; National Power Corporation v. Posada, 755 Phil. 613, 623 (2015).
6.National Power Corporation v. Marasigan, supra note 5; National Power Corporation v. Asoque, supra note 5.
7.See Westmont Investment Corp. v. Francia, Jr., 678 Phil. 180, 191 (2011).
8.Republic v. Soriano, 755 Phil. 187, 198 (2015).
9. Jurisprudence is replete with cases declaring that owners of expropriated lands are entitled to legal interest on the compensation eventually adjudged only from the date the condemnor takes possession of the land until the full compensation is paid to them or deposited in court. See Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic, G.R. No. 218628, September 6, 2017; Biglang-Awa v. Bacalla, 399 Phil. 308 (2000); Republic v. Tayengco, 126 Phil. 279 (1967); Republic v. Roman Catholic Church of Zamboanga, 103 Phil. 231 (1958); Republic v. Lara, 96 Phil. 170 (1954); Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney-General, 41 Phil. 163 (1920).
10. Section 10, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides:
SEC. 10. Rights of plaintiff after judgment and payment. — Upon payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of the compensation fixed by the judgment, with legal interest thereon from the taking of the possession of the property, or after tender to him of the amount so fixed and payment of the costs, the plaintiff shall have the right to enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate it for the public use or purpose defined in the judgment, or to retain it should he have taken immediate possession thereof under the provisions of Section 2 hereof. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
11. See Article 2212 of the Civil Code of the Philippines; BP Oil and Chemicals International Philippines, Inc. v. Total Distribution & Logistics Systems, Inc., G.R. No. 214406, February 6, 2017; Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Spouses Tecson, G.R. No. 179334 758 Phil. 604, 640 (2015).