THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221608. September 29, 2021.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, petitioner,vs. SPOUSES ROBERTO AND ZENAIDA GORDON, PHIL. DEVELOPMENT & INDUSTRIAL CORP., SPOUSES MARCIANO AND MARIA CRISANTA MATA, REMEDIOS ONG, MARIANO ONG, JR., ALBERT ONG, SPOUSES SANTOS, JACQUELINE ONG, AND SPOUSES JOSE LUIS AND OFELIA SANTOS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221608 (Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Toll Regulatory Board v. Spouses Roberto and Zenaida Gordon, Phil. Development & Industrial Corp., Spouses Marciano and Maria Crisanta Mata, Remedios Ong, Mariano Ong, Jr., Albert Ong, Spouses Santos, Jacqueline Ong, and Spouses Jose Luis and Ofelia Santos). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated September 26, 2014 and the Resolution 3 dated October 21, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 100848. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision 4 dated April 14, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, directing the Republic of the Philippines as represented by the Toll Regulatory Board (petitioner) to pay Spouses Marciano and Ma. Crisanta Mata (Sps. Mata) and Remedios Ong, Mariano Ong, Jr., Albert Ong, Sps. Santos and Jacqueline Ong (Ongs; collectively, respondents), 5 just compensation for their affected properties in the amount P5,600.00 per square meter with 12% interest per annum counted from the filing of the complaint.
On March 4, 2002, petitioner filed before the RTC a case for expropriation against the landowners affected by the construction, rehabilitation, and expansion of the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX). Respondents' properties are located in Patubig, Marilao, Bulacan and are within the Marilao Interchange of the NLEX. The ownership, size, and zonal value of the affected properties are as follow: 6
|
Owner |
TCT No. |
Lot No. |
Total Land Area |
Affected Area |
Zonal Value per square meter |
Zonal Value of the affected area |
|
Sps. Mata |
T-58991 |
817-C-2-C |
3,000 sq. m. |
1,942 sq. m. |
P450.00 |
P873,900.00 |
|
Ongs |
T-294613 |
817-C-2-B |
3,000 sq. m. |
1,015 sq. m. |
P450.00 |
P456,746.00 |
After petitioner complied with the requirements of notice to respondents and the deposit of 100% of the zonal value of the affected properties, the RTC issued a Writ of Possession and Order of Expropriation on April 11, 2002, and November 10, 2003, respectively. 7 Thereafter, the RTC appointed the members of the Board of Commissioners (BOC), namely: Fernando Y. Garcia (Comm. Garcia), the Municipal Assessor of Marilao, Bulacan, Ramon S. Samson (Comm. Samson), the branch Legal Researcher, and Cecilia Q. Panganiban (Comm. Panganiban). The Commissioners took their oath of office on May 27, 2009. 8
In their Commissioner's Report 9 dated December 28, 2010, Comm. Garcia and Samson recommended that respondents be paid in the amount of P5,600.00 per square meter while Comm. Panganiban recommended the amount of P6,100.00 per square meter as just compensation. Both recommended amounts shall be less the amount initially paid for respondents' respective properties which were taken by petitioner for the rehabilitation/expansion of the NLEX. 10
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On April 14, 2011, the RTC rendered its Decision adopting the recommendation of Comm. Garcia and Samson. It fixed the just compensation at P5,600.00 per square meter. It directed petitioner to pay interest on the amount of just compensation at the rate of 12% per annum counted from the filing of the complaint. It ruled that the BOC stated in their report the various steps they made in arriving at the value for just compensation. They were guided by the relevant factors stated in Section 5 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8974. An ocular inspection was made. Information both documentary and testimonial from reliable persons were gathered. The best and highest use of the property was also considered. 11
The RTC Judge noted that, she, together with the counsels for the plaintiffs and defendants conducted an ocular inspection on the subject properties as well as the other properties affected by the expropriation proceedings located in Marilao, Bulacan. She observed that the properties of respondents are along the national road and are surrounded by warehouses, factories, and commercial establishments. She held that the amount of P5,600.00 per square meter is the same amount that the court awarded to the other properties adjacent to the properties of respondents, which order of the court fixing the just compensation are already become final and executory. 12
Petitioner appealed to the CA, arguing that: (1) the just compensation of P5,600.00 per square meter is excessive; (2) the interest in expropriation proceedings is 6% per annum and not 12%; (3) the tax declarations of the subject properties show that they are declared for agricultural use and their market values are lower than P5,600.00 per square meter; and (4) the BOC's Report did not consider the actual use of the properties, but merely described the establishments in the general area. 13
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision dated September 26, 2014, the CA partly granted petitioner's appeal. It ordered petitioner to pay respondents just compensation of P5,600.00 per square meter plus 6% interest per annum on the balance of just compensation counted from the date of the possession of the properties until full payment. 14 It held that the determination of just compensation is not limited by the market value and the classification of a property indicated in the tax declaration. The Commissioners may consider other factors such as the condition of the property, and its surroundings, improvements, and capabilities. The CA noted the BOC's Report that the properties are along barangay/municipal road of Marilao going to Bocaue and Sta. Maria, Bulacan and in between national roads — the NLEX and the national/provincial road known as "Marilao to San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan Road." Public transportation is available on a 24-hour basis. The properties are approximately 2-3 kilometers away from the Municipal Hall of Marilao, Bulacan and near various establishments like gasoline station, mall, and factories. 15
Further, the CA stated that the Commissioners found that the highest and best use of the properties is commercial and residential. The latter's failure to indicate the actual use of the properties does not render their valuation erroneous because it is not mandatory for the court to consider all the factors prescribed in Section 5 of R.A. 8794. Furthermore, the CA gave credence to the RTC's statement that it awarded the same amount of just compensation to the properties adjacent to respondents' lots. With respect to the interest to be imposed, the CA agreed with petitioner that the proper rate is 6% per annum consistent with Article 2209 of the Civil Code since it is an indemnity for damages for the delay in the payment of just compensation. 16
Petitioner moved for partial reconsideration which the CA denied in its Resolution 17 dated October 21, 2015. Undaunted, petitioner filed a petition for review before Us.
Arguments of Petitioner
Petitioner argued that the CA erred in fixing the just compensation for respondents' properties at P5,600.00 per square meter as it is excessive and does not reflect the value of the properties as of the date of the filing of the complaint. It maintained that the properties were declared for agricultural use and their market values in the tax declarations are lower than P5,600.00. 18 It also claimed that ocular inspection was done eight years after the filing of the complaint or in 2010. There was no clarification in the BOC's Report whether the conditions, developments, and infrastructures in the area were existing at the time of the taking of the properties. The Commissioners did not indicate the actual use of the subject properties but merely speculated as to their highest and best use. 19 Lastly, petitioner faulted the CA for giving credence to the RTC's claim that it awarded the same amount of just compensation to the other properties adjacent to respondent's properties. It maintained that the records do not contain a copy of the aforesaid decisions of the RTC. According, it prayed that the just compensation be fixed in the amount equivalent to 100% of their zonal valuation, which are: (1) for the Sps. Mata P873,900 and the Ongs P456,750. 20
Arguments of Respondents
Respondents alleged that based on the records of the RTC where this petition originated, petitioner already accepted and paid P5,600.00 per square meter as the just compensation for the expropriated lots of the other defendants in the case, for instance, Spouses Roberto and Zenaida Gordon (which were also named as respondents in the title of the present petition). This is the reason why petitioner did not include Sps. Gordon in its appeal. Respondents also argued that both the RTC and the CA adopted the findings of the BOC that the just compensation for the subject properties is P5,600.00 per square meter. Factual findings of the RTC when affirmed by the CA are conclusive on the Supreme Court. Respondents noted that the BOC had the opportunity to conduct an ocular inspection of the properties as well as their immediate vicinity and surrounding. They rejected petitioner's argument that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) zonal valuation should be the basis of just compensation because it does not reflect the appreciation in the property's value on a year to year basis. Likewise, the assessed value in the tax declaration cannot be the sole basis for just compensation. 21
As regards the interest rate to be imposed, respondents stated that they are entitled to 12% interest from the time of taking up to June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until the just compensation shall have fully paid. They noted that it has been 14 years (as of the filing of the comment in 2018) since their properties were taken. The owners of adjoining lots which were also expropriated had been fully paid their just compensation of P5,600.00 per square meter plus 12% interest as early as 2007 and 2008. They see no reason why they should be treated differently and arbitrarily. 22
Petitioned filed a Manifestation, 23 stating that it is adopting its Petition for Review and dispensing with the filing of a Reply to expedite the disposition of the case and to avoid repetition of arguments.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the CA erred in fixing the just compensation of the subject properties at P5,600.00 per square meters.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is bereft of merit.
At the outset, a petition for review on certiorari deals only with pure questions of law. Issues pertaining to the value of the property expropriated are questions of facts which are generally beyond the scope of judicial review under Rule 45. 24 We are not a trier of facts. While this rule admits of exceptions, none is obtaining in this case.
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the loss of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. Its true measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to modify the meaning of the word "compensation" indicating that the equivalent to be given for the property taken should be real, substantial, full, and ample. The determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial prerogative. Nevertheless, the appointment of commissioners to ascertain the just compensation is a mandatory requirement. While the trial court may disregard the findings of the commissioners and substitute its own estimate of the value of the properties, it may only do so for a valid reason, such as where the commissioners: (1) applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them; (2) disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence; or (3) the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive. The recommendations of the BOC carry great weight and value insofar as the determination of just compensation is concerned. 25
Here, We see no reason to disturb the ruling of the RTC and the CA, which gave due weight to the BOC's Report and fixed the just compensation at P5,600.00 per square meter.
First, contrary to the claim of petitioner, the BOC's Report stated the date of their valuation which is March 4, 2002, or the date when the complaint for expropriation was filed. 26 Under Section 4, Rule 67 27 of the Rules of Court, just compensation shall be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. The record showed that petitioner initiated the expropriation proceedings before it took possession of the properties on April 11, 2002, the date when the RTC issued a Writ of Possession. Thus, the BOC correctly used March 4, 2002 as the material date of valuation.
Second, the BOC considered the factors stated in Section 5 of R.A. 8974, otherwise known as the "An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site, or Location for National Government Infrastructure and for Other Purposes," in determining the value of the subject properties. The relevant standards enumerated in Section 5 are:
(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.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the BOC and the trial court are not required to consider all the foregoing factors in their valuation of the subject properties, R.A. 8974 provides that, "[t]he court may consider, among other well-established factors, the following standards x x x." The use of the word "may" in the provision is construed as permissive and operating to confer discretion. 28 Consequently, We are not persuaded by petitioner's argument that the BOC's Report is erroneous because it did not state the actual use of the subject properties. The factors which were considered in the BOC's Report are the classification and use for which the properties are best suited, the value declared by the owners, the size, shape, or location of the properties, tax declaration, and zonal valuation of the land, and existing developments in the vicinity of the property. We note that the findings of the BOC that the subject properties are along the national road and are surrounded by warehouses and factories coincided with the RTC's judge observations when she, together with the parties' counsels, conducted an ocular inspection of the properties affected by the expropriation proceedings in Marilao, Bulacan.
Third, We reject petitioner's insistence that the just compensation for the subject properties should be their BIR zonal valuation, which is P450.00 per square meter. Zonal valuation is merely one of the standards to be considered under Section 5 of R.A. 8974. Hence, it cannot be the sole basis for the determination of just compensation. 29 Similarly, the value indicated in the properties' tax declaration, by itself, is not controlling since it is also just one of the several factors mentioned in Section 5. 30
Fourth, We observe that petitioner did not deny respondents' claim, in their Comment, that the former already paid the other defendants in the same expropriation case in the RTC from which the present petition originated. Petitioner allegedly paid the owners of the adjoining lots at P5,600.00 per square meter. In the absence of a denial from petitioner, the foregoing allegation of respondent is deemed admitted. Fairness dictates that respondents should also be paid at the same amount of P5,600.00 per square meter. Accordingly, Sps. Mata should be paid the amount of P10,875,200.00 31 while the Ongs should be paid P5,684,000.00 32 as just compensation for their affected properties.
Meanwhile, although We agree with the amount fixed by the CA for the just compensation of respondent's properties, We hold that the CA erred in imposing interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the balance of just compensation counted from the date of possession of the properties until full payment.
While the interest rate imposable on just compensation is now 6% per annum pursuant to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, case law teaches that the 12% interest rate still applies in the period prior to July 1, 2013, when the Circular became effective. The total amount of just compensation further earns interest from the finality of the decision until full payment. 33 Hence, in this case, an interest of 12% per annum on the difference between the final amount adjudged by the Court and the initial payment made shall accrue from April 11, 2002 (the date when petitioner took possession of the property) until June 30, 2013. From July 1, 2013 until the finality of the Decision of the Court, the difference between the initial payment and the final amount adjudged by the Court shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Thereafter, the total amount of just compensation shall earn legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment thereof. 34
All told, the courts a quo did not err in fixing just compensation at P5,600.00 per square meter. Petitioner took respondents' properties in 2002 or 19 years ago yet they remained uncompensated. It is high time that petitioner pay respondents their due.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision dated September 26, 2014 and the Resolution dated October 21, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100848 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Petitioner is ORDERED to pay interest at the following rates:
(1) The difference between the total amount of just compensation of P10,875,200.00 for the Sps. Mata and P5,684,000.00 for the Ongs and the provisional deposit of P873,900.00 for the Sps. Mata and P456,756.00 for the Ongs shall earn legal interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of taking, April 11, 2002, until June 30, 2013;
(2) The difference between the total amount of just compensation and the initial deposit shall earn legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until the finality of the Resolution; and
(3) The total amount of just compensation shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the Resolution until its full payment.
SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-31.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (former Member of the Court) and Socorro B. Inting; id. at 35-430.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (former Member of the Court) and Socorro B. Inting; id. at 44-45.
4. Penned by Judge Ma. Belen Ringpis-Liban; id. at 60-64; 65-69.
5. Although petitioner named Sps. Gordon and Sps. Santos as respondents in the title of the case, a perusal of the petition showed that the actual respondents in the case are only Sps. Mata and the Ongs; id. at 15.
6.Id. at 36.
7.Id. at 36.
8.Id. at 61, 66.
9.Id. at 47-59.
10.Id. at 58.
11.Id. at 62; 67.
12.Id. at 63-64; 68.
13.Id. at 38.
14.Id. at 42.
15.Id. at 38-40.
16.Id. at 41-42.
17.Id. at 44-45.
18.Id. at 21-23.
19.Id. at 27-28.
20.Id. at 28-30.
21.Id. at 92-95.
22.Id. at 95-96.
23.Id. at 102.
24.Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic, 817 Phil. 1048, 1057 (2017).
25.Republic v. Spouses Silvestre, G.R. No. 237324, February 6, 2019.
26.Rollo, p. 49.
27. Section 4. Order of expropriation. — If the objections to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are overruled, or when no party appears to defend as required by this Rule, the court may issue an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.(Emphasis supplied)
28.Republic v. Heirs of Spouses Bautista, 702 Phil. 284, 298 (2013).
29.Republic v. Spouses Legaspi, G.R. No. 221995, October 3, 2018.
30.Republic v. Spouses Silvestre, G.R. No. 237324, February 6, 2019.
31. Affected land area of 1,942 square meters multiplied to P5,600 per square meter.
32. Affected land area of 1,015 square meters multiplied to P5,600 per square meter.
33.Republic v. Heirs of Bonifacio, G.R. No. 226734, May 10, 2021, citing Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic, 817 Phil. 1048 (2017).
34. See Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic, 817 Phil. 1048 (2017).