Delaying the payment of just compensation to a landowner whose property was taken over by the government for public use is an “injustice.”
The Supreme Court (SC) made this observation in a ruling on the case of a property owner whose land was expropriated by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in 2000 for the construction of a bridge in Cagayan de Oro City in Mindanao.
Records of the case showed that the landowner, Casimiro Tamparong Jr. of Barangay Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro, has not been fully paid up to the time of his death on Dec. 3, 2018.
“What more injustice can be caused to a landowner who, up to the time of his death, was not able to fully enjoy the benefits of the land taken from him by the government than to short-change him with the delay in the payment of just compensation,” the SC said in a decision penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez.
“Time, indeed, is costly to squander.
Delays, justified or otherwise, have irreversible consequences,” the decision read. Documents showed that in 1999 the DPWH initiated expropriation proceedings over 7,555 square meters of land owned by Tamparong Jr. in barangay Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro City.
On Nov. 27, 2000, the Regional Trial Court issued an order of expropriation declaring the government’s lawful right to expropriate the property to be used for the Cagayan de Oro Third Bridge and Approaches project of the DPWH.
On Nov. 29, 2000, the RTC ordered the government’s takeover of Tamparong’s property.
“Years of laborious hearings and exchange of pleadings, however, ensued for the determination of the just compensation,” the records indicated.
Tamparong died on Dec. 3, 2018, but compensation for his land has not been fully settled at the time.
The DPWH had initially paid P9.4 million as provisional deposit. After 10 years, on Jan. 21, 2010, the RTC determined the just compensation for the land at P3,500 per square-meter and ordered the payment of legal interest until fully paid.
With no motion for reconsideration filed by either party, the RTC decision became final.
Three years later, the court issued a writ of execution indicating P27.6 million, based on Tamparong’s computation, as the remaining balance yet to be paid by the DPWH.
On DPWH’s motion, the RTC issued an amended writ of execution which deleted the exact amount previously indicated as it reiterated its Jan. 21, 2010 resolution.
On Jan. 13, 2014, the DPWH communicated to Tamparong and indicated the remaining balance to be paid at P17.2 million including the interest of six percent annually from the time of the taking of the land until Dec. 11, 2013.
Tamparong’s lawyer Joseph M. Baduel responded, seeking payment of the balance with interest at six percent per annum from the taking of the property and 12 percent annually from finality of
judgment until Dec. 11, 2013.
The lawyer sought the immediate payment since Tamparong, who was already over 80 years old, had a medical condition.
Meanwhile, on June 25, 2014, the RTC issued an order citing the DPWH for the delay in the payment and directed that the legal interest be fixed at 12 percent per annum.
The DPWH moved for reconsideration as it insisted that the 12 percent legal interest is imposed only “in the nature of damages for delay in payment” of the just compensation.
It claimed there was no delay since it had already made substantial provisional payments.
With its motion denied by the RTC, the DPWH elevated the issue before the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the ruling of the trial court in a decision issued on May 30, 2017.
The DPWH subsequently filed a petition before the SC assailing the CA’s decision.
In resolving the case, the SC cited Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that ‘no property shall be taken for public use without just compensation’, which presupposes that the condemnor incurs delay if it does not pay the landowner the full amount of just compensation on the date of the taking.
“Ideally, thus, just compensation means full payment of the value of the property immediately upon its taking. However, the determination of just compensation is determined judicially, which more often than not, takes time after the government had already taken possession of the property,” the SC noted.
“Consequently, in the interim, the property owner suffers, not only the deprivation of their land, but also its use, fruits, or income. To remedy the impasse, applicable laws or rules on expropriation require a provisional payment upon the date of the taking or the filing of the complaint.
“The difference then between the court-determined final amount and the provisional payment incurs legal interest in line with the constitutional mandate on eminent domain and as a basic measure of fairness, otherwise, the compensation would not be ‘just,’” the SC said. Rey Requejo
