0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
84 просмотров6 страниц
The document discusses the definition and requirements of just compensation under Philippine law for property acquired through expropriation. It notes that just compensation must be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken based on the owner's loss, paid within a reasonable time. Interest is due if payment is delayed, to compensate the owner for lost income and make them whole. The case discussed involved a 21-year delay in paying just compensation for land acquired through agrarian reform, so the court awarded legal interest for the period of non-payment.
The document discusses the definition and requirements of just compensation under Philippine law for property acquired through expropriation. It notes that just compensation must be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken based on the owner's loss, paid within a reasonable time. Interest is due if payment is delayed, to compensate the owner for lost income and make them whole. The case discussed involved a 21-year delay in paying just compensation for land acquired through agrarian reform, so the court awarded legal interest for the period of non-payment.
The document discusses the definition and requirements of just compensation under Philippine law for property acquired through expropriation. It notes that just compensation must be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken based on the owner's loss, paid within a reasonable time. Interest is due if payment is delayed, to compensate the owner for lost income and make them whole. The case discussed involved a 21-year delay in paying just compensation for land acquired through agrarian reform, so the court awarded legal interest for the period of non-payment.
defined just compensation as 'the full and fair equivalent of
the property taken from its owner by the expropriator,' and that the gauge for computation is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. In order to be 'just,' the payment must be real, substantial, full, and ample. The concept of just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land, but also the payment of the land within a 'reasonable time' from the taking of the property. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered 'just' inasmuch as the property owner is made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his or her loss. In this case, the DAR literally took respondent's land without her knowledge and participation, and without paying her just compensation. Worse, from the time of the taking of respondent's land in 1993 to the time this case reached the Supreme Court until it was decided on 11 August 2014, LBP has not compensated respondent although DAR has already distributed the lands to the farmer beneficiaries for more than twenty-one (21) years ago. Justice and equity require that the unreasonable, even oppressive, delay in the payment of just compensation be appropriately remedied by the award of legal interest in respondent's favor. Legalinterest is the measure of damages arising from delay (mora solvendi) under the Civil Code. We thus RECOMMEND 12% interest per annum, computed from November 17, 1993 to June 30, 2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until their full satisfaction in the nature of damages for the delay in payment. (Department of Agrarian Reform v. Galle, G.R. Nos. 171836 & 195213 |||
(Resolution), [October 2, 2017])
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair
equivalent of the property sought to be expropriated. The measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. The compensation, to be just, must be fair not only to the owner but also to the taker. Even as undervaluation would deprive the owner of his property without due process,so too would its overvaluation unduly favor him to the prejudice of the public. 10 (Emphasis supplied) In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lajom,11 the Court made the following pronouncement as well: As a final word, the Court would like to emphasize that while the agrarian reform program was undertaken primarily for the benefit of our landless farmers, this undertaking should, however, not result in the oppression of landowners by pegging the cheapest value for their lands. Indeed, although the taking of properties foragrarian reform purposes is a revolutionary kind of expropriation, it should not be carried out at the undue expense of landowners who are also entitled to protection under the Constitution and agrarian reform laws. (Department of Agrarian Reform v. Galle, G.R. Nos. 171836 & 195213 |||
(Resolution), [October 2, 2017])
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Salvador
Encinas,this Court reiterated this long-established principle, thus: The 'taking of private lands under the agrarian reform program partakes of the nature of an expropriation proceeding.' In computing thejust compensation for expropriation proceedings, the RTC should take into consideration the 'value of the land at the time of the taking,not at the time of the rendition of judgment.' 'The time of taking is the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property,such as when title is transferred to the Republic.' 19 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted) In Alfonso,the Court reiterated the settled doctrine that the ultimate determination of just compensation in expropriation proceedings remains a judicial prerogative,stating thus: For the guidance of the bench, the bar, and the public, we reiterate the rule: Out of regard for the DAR's expertise as the concerned implementing agency, courts should henceforth consider the factors stated in Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, as translated into the applicable DAR formulas in their determination ofjust compensation for the properties covered by the said law. If, in the exercise of their judicial discretion, courts find that a strict application of said formulas is not warranted under the specific circumstances of the case before them, they may deviate or depart therefrom,provided that this departure or deviation is supported by a reasoned explanation grounded on the evidence on record. In other words, courts of law possess the power to make a final determination of justcompensation. (Department of Agrarian Reform v. Galle, G.R. Nos. 171836 & |||
195213 (Resolution), [October 2, 2017])
In expropriation cases, interest is due the landowner if there was
delay in payment. The imposition of interest was in the nature of damages for the delay in payment, which in effect makes the obligation on the part of the government one of forbearance. It follows that the interest in the form of damages cannot be applied where there was prompt and valid payment of just compensation. 52 In Apo Fruits Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 53 we stressed that interest on just compensation is imposed only in case of delay in the payment thereof, which must be sufficiently established. (Land Bank of |||
the Phils. v. Kumassie Plantation Co., Inc., G.R. Nos. 177404 & 178097, [June 25, 2009], 608 PHIL 523-548)
LBP is liable to pay legal interest
from the time of the taking of the property until full payment thereof.
As to the manner of interest, Apo claimed that the 12% legal
interest due from LBP because of its delay in paying the just compensation should be computed at the time of the taking of the subject property, i.e., on December 9, 1996, until full payment has been made and not until May 9, 2008. As to the 12% interest, LBP claimed that there was no delay on its part in the payment of just compensation. LBP already paid in full the initial valuation for the subject property in the amount of Php3,814,053.53 before TCT No. 113359 was cancelled and transferred in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Therefore, LBP should not be held liable to pay legal interest if it already paid in full the preliminary valuation of the subject property. 52 In Republic of the Phils. v. CA, 53 this Court held that: The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition or the fair value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, it fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. Thus, if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must include interests on its just value to be computed from the time the property is taken to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. In fine, between the taking of the property and the actual payment, legal interests accrue in order to place the owner in a position as good as (but not better than) the position he was in before the taking occurred. 54 The award of interest is intended to compensate the property owner for the income it would have made had it been properly compensated for its property at the time of the taking. "The need for prompt payment and the necessity of the payment of interest is to compensate for any delay in the payment of compensation for property already taken." 55 "The award of interest is imposed in the nature of damages for delay in payment which, in effect, makes the obligation on the part ofthe government one of forbearance to ensure prompt payment of the value of the land and limit the opportunity loss of the owner." 56 In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Phil-Agro Industrial Corporation, 57 We had the occasion to rule that the mere fact that the LBP made an initial payment of the just compensation does not mean that the government is not liable for any delay in the payment of just compensation, thus: It is doctrinal that to be considered as just, the compensation must be fair and equitable, and the landowners must have received it without any delay. The requirement of the law is not satisfied by the mere deposit with any accessible bank of the provisional compensation determined by it or by the DAR, and its subsequent release to the landowner after compliance with the legal requirements set forth by R.A. No. 6657. (Emphasis ours) In the present case, LBP merely deposited the amount of Php3,814,053.53 as initial payment of the just compensation. The RTC's valuation in its decision 58 as just compensation for the subject property is Php149,783,000.27. There is a staggering difference between the initial payment made by the LBP and the amount ofthe just compensation due to Apo. It should be noted that the subject property has already been taken by the government on December 9, 1996. Up to this date, the just compensation has not been fully paid. During the interim, Apo is deprived of the income it would have made had it been properly compensated for the properties at the time of the taking. It is therefore necessary to hold LBP liable to pay for the legal interest due to its delay in fully satisfying the payment of the just compensation. Thus, LBP is liable to pay legal interest of 12% counted from December 9, 1996, the time of the taking until June 30, 2013. 59 Thereafter, or beginning July 1, 2013 until fully paid, the just compensation shall earn 6% legal interest in accordance with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Circular No. 799, Series of2013. As to the award of attorney's fees, while the general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of the damages because no premium should be placed on the right to litigate, 60 We deem it proper to affirm the award of 10% attorney's fees in favor of Apo. We quote with confirmity the ruling of the CA in justifying the award of attorney's fees, thus: Despite pragmatic considerations and actualities, convincing figures and statistics, [LBP] and DAR stood firm on their unreasonableness. P16.50 per [sq. m.], the valuation of [LBP] and DAR, is way off P134.00. The disparity is too obvious; their stubbornness, impossible (sic). [LBP] and DAR should not delude themselves that they are being robbed merely because another deserves to be paid justly. Every person, especially government entities, must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.TAIaHE
Simple fairness dictates that the [DARAB] should have
resolved the matter of just compensation brought before it. The lapse of six years without the adjudication board acting on the case not only compelled Apo Fruits to litigate, this refusal to satisfy Apo Fruits' plainly valid, just and demandable claim is also tantamount to gross and evident bad faith. 61 It must be emphasized that the subject property has been transferred in the name of the government as early as December 9, 1996 despite Apo's rejection ofLBP's valuation of the subject property. To make matters worse, when Apo filed a complaint for determination of just compensation with the DARAB, the latter unjustifiably and without any reason failed to act upon the complaint for almost six years, thus, prompting Apo to file a complaint with the RTC for determination ofjust compensation. Further, despite the ruling that the valuation of the subject property is Php130.00, LBP still maintained its conviction that only the amount ofPhp16.50 per square meter is due to Apo. The award of attorney's fees is justified by LBP's refusal to satisfy Apo's valid claim which forced the latter to litigate to protect its property rights. (Apo Fruits Corp. v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. |||