REPUBLIC v. SALVADOR

Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Vs. Spouses Senando F. Salvador and Josefina R. Salvador

G.R. No. 205428

June 7, 2017

Facts:

Respondents are the registered owners of a parcel of land with a total land area of 229 square meters, located in Kaingin Street, Barangay Parada, Valenzuela City, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.V-77660. On November 9, 2011, the Republic, represented by the Department of - Public Works and Highways (DPWH), filed a verified Complaint before the RTC for the expropriation of 83 square meters of said parcel of land (subject property), as well as the improvements thereon, for the construction of the C-5 Northern Link Road Project Phase 2 (Segment 9) from the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) to McArthur Highway. On February 10, 2012, respondents received two checks from the DPWH representing 100% of the zonal value of the subject property and the cost of the one-storey semi-concrete residential house.

Issues:

1. Whether the RTC correctly denied the Republic's Motion for Partial Reconsideration for having been filed out of time;

2. Second, whether the capital gains tax on the transfer of the expropriated property can be considered as consequential damages that may be awarded to respondents.

Ruling:

RTC rendered judgment in favor of the Republic condemning t1Je subject property for the purpose of implementing the construction of the C-5 Northern Link Road Project Phase 2 (Segment 9) from NLEX to McArthur Highway, Valenzuela City. RTC likewise directed the Republic to pay respondents consequential damages equivalent to the value of the capital gains tax and other taxes. Petition is impressed with merit.

In this case, the records show that the Republic filed its Motion for Partial Reconsideration before the RTC via registered mail on September 28, 2012. Given these circumstances, we hold that the RTC erred in denying the Republic's Motion for Partial Reconsideration for having been filed out of time.

Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property sought to be expropriated. In order to determine just compensation, the trial court should first ascertain the market value of the property by considering the cost of acquisition, the current value of like properties, its actual or potential uses, and in the particular case of lands, their size, shape, location, and the tax declarations thereon.

If as a result of the expropriation, the remaining lot suffers from an impairment or decrease in value, consequential damages may be awarded by the trial court, provided that the consequential benefits which may arise from the expropriation do not exceed said damages suffered by the owner of the property.

While it is true that "the determination of the amount of just compensation is within the court's discretion, it should not be done arbitrarily or capriciously. [Rather,] it must [always] be based on all established rules, upon correct legal principles and competent evidence." The court cannot base its judgment on mere speculations and surmises. The Supreme Court grants the Petition for Review on Certiorari.