SC: Delay in paying just compensation an injustice
Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that ‘no property shall be taken for public use without just compensation’
Daily TribuneSection 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that ‘no property shall be taken for public use without just compensation’
An injustice is committed when payment of just compensation to a landowner whose property is expropriated by the government for public use is delayed for years.
The Supreme Court laid down this precept in tackling the case of a landowner who, up to the time of his death, was not able to fully enjoy the benefits of his expropriated land.
In the ruling, SC Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez explained that lost time, when it pertains to the delay in the payment of just compensation, has irreversible consequences.
The ruling pertained to a case in 1999 when the Department of Public Works and Highways initiated expropriation proceedings over a 7,555-square meter land owned by one Casimiro Tamparong Jr. in Barangay Kauswagan in Cagayan de Oro City.
P9.4-M deposit
Records showed that on 27 Nov. 2000, a regional trial court affirmed the government’s lawful right to expropriate the property to be used for a bridge project of the DPWH in Cagayan de Oro.
Two days after the ruling, the court ordered the takeover of Tamparong’s property. However, years of hearings and exchange of pleadings ensued between the dispossessed landowner and the government on the determination of just compensation.
A deposit of P9.4 million was paid by the DPWH, after which the court, in a decision dated 21 January 2010, set just compensation at P3,500 per square meter, with legal interest to be paid.
Thereafter, the court issued a writ of execution on 7 March 2013. Tamparong’s computation showed DPWH owed him P27.6 million. However, the DPWH said the remaining balance should only be P17.2 million, including the interest of six percent per annum.
Tamparong’s counsel, Joseph Baduel, filed a pleading for the payment of the balance with interest pegged at six percent per annum from the taking of the property, and 12 percent annually from the finality of judgment until 11 December 2013.
The lawyer sought immediate payment since Tamparong, who was already over 80 years old, had a medical condition.
The lower court, in a decision on 25 June 2014, fixed the interest rate at 12 percent as it considered the state’s delay in paying the landowner.
The DPWH moved for reconsideration, insisting that the 12 percent legal interest should not apply as it claimed there were no delays as it had already made substantial provisional payments.
When the RTC denied the DPWH petition, it elevated the issue before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling of the trial court in a decision issued on 30 May 2017.
The DPWH then ran to the SC, assailing the CA’s and the RTC’s decisions. Tamparong would die on 3 December 2018 without being paid his just compensation in full for his land.
In resolving the issue, the SC said: “Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that ‘no property shall be taken for public use without just compensation.’
This, the SC emphasized, 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.