4.;i>a:~ r.

ov ,

I> . ..
, / .;

+,. ,

~
. \
!:l ' ~
Cl

"''f', ~,.;
'<-t-'"~t v.'" 1\~$

"-':!' f\Ct. .,,,

31\epnblic of t{Je
~upreme

~~{Jilippine%

QCourt

;lflllm t iln

THIRD DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

represented by the DEPARTMENT
OF
PUBLIC
WORKS
AND
HIGHWAYS,
Petitioners,

- versus -

G.R. No. 211666

Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
PERALTA,
VILLARAMA, JR. ,
REYES, and
LEONEN, * JJ.

Promulgated:
ARLENE R. SORIANO,

February 25, 2015

x-----------------------~~"."~~~~~-~------------------~-~
DECISION

PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the Decision 1 dated November 15, 2013 and Order2 dated
March 10, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Valenzuela City, Branch
270, in Civil Case No. 140-V-10.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On October 20, 2010, petitioner Republic of the Philippines,
represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH),
filed a Complaint3 for expropriation against respondent Arlene R. Soriano,
the registered owner of a parcel of land consisting of an area of 200 square
meters, situated at Gen. T De Leon, Valenzuela City, and covered by
Designated Acting Member, in li eu of Associate Ju stice Francis H. Jarde leza, per Raffle dated
September 8, 20 14 .
1
Pen ned by Judge Evange lin e M. Francisco; Annex " A" to Petition , ro l/o, pp. 27-3 2.
Annex " B" to Petition , id. at 33-34 .
An nex " D" to Pet iti on , id. at 38-49.

[lll

Decision

-2-

G.R. No. 211666

Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. V-13790.4 In its Complaint,

petitioner averred that pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 8974, otherwise
known as An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-Of-Way, Site or
Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for other
Purposes, the property sought to be expropriated shall be used in
implementing the construction of the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX)Harbor Link Project (Segment 9) from NLEX to MacArthur Highway,
Valenzuela City.5
Petitioner duly deposited to the Acting Branch Clerk of Court the
amount of P420,000.00 representing 100% of the zonal value of the subject
property. Consequently, in an Order6 dated May 27, 2011, the RTC ordered
the issuance of a Writ of Possession and a Writ of Expropriation for failure
of respondent, or any of her representatives, to appear despite notice during
the hearing called for the purpose.
In another Order7 dated June 21, 2011, the RTC appointed the
following members of the Board of Commissioners for the determination of
just compensation: (1) Ms. Eunice O. Josue, Officer-in-Charge, RTC,
Branch 270, Valenzuela City; (2) Atty. Cecilynne R. Andrade, Acting
Valenzuela City Assessor, City Assessors Office, Valenzuela City; and (3)
Engr. Restituto Bautista, of Brgy. Bisig, Valenzuela City. However, the trial
court subsequently revoked the appointment of the Board for their failure to
submit a report as to the fair market value of the property to assist the court
in the determination of just compensation and directed the parties to submit
their respective position papers.8 Thereafter, the case was set for hearing
giving the parties the opportunity to present and identify all evidence in
support of their arguments therein.
According to the RTC, the records of the case reveal that petitioner
adduced evidence to show that the total amount deposited is just, fair, and
equitable. Specifically, in its Position Paper, petitioner alleged that pursuant
to a Certification issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Revenue
Region No. 5, the zonal value of the subject property in the amount of
P2,100.00 per square meter is reasonable, fair, and just to compensate the
defendant for the taking of her property in the total area of 200 square
meters.9 In fact, Tax Declaration No. C-018-07994, dated November 13,
2009 submitted by petitioner, shows that the value of the subject property is
at a lower rate of P400.00 per square meter. Moreover, as testified to by
Associate Solicitor III Julie P. Mercurio, and as affirmed by the photographs
4
5
6
7
8
9

Annex E to Petition, id. at 50.

Id. at 27.
Annex G to Petition, id. at 53.
Annex H to Petition, id. at 54.
Annex I to Petition, id. at 55.
Id. at 28.

Decision

-3-

G.R. No. 211666

submitted, the subject property is poorly maintained, covered by shrubs and

weeds, and not concretely-paved. It is located far from commercial or
industrial developments in an area without a proper drainage system, can
only be accessed through a narrow dirt road, and is surrounded by adjacent
dwellings of sub-standard materials.
Accordingly, the RTC considered respondent to have waived her right
to adduce evidence and to object to the evidence submitted by petitioner for
her continued absence despite being given several notices to do so.
On November 15, 2013, the RTC rendered its Decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, with the foregoing determination of just
compensation, judgment is hereby rendered:
1) Declaring plaintiff to have lawful right to acquire
possession of and title to 200 square meters of
defendant Arlene R. Sorianos parcel of land covered
by TCT V-13790 necessary for the construction of the
NLEX Harbor Link Project (Segment 9) from NLEX
to MacArthur Highway Valenzuela City;
2) Condemning portion to the extent of 200 square meters
of the above-described parcel of land including
improvements thereon, if there be any, free from all
liens and encumbrances;
3) Ordering the plaintiff to pay defendant Arlene R.
Soriano Php2,100.00 per square meter or the sum of
Four
Hundred
Twenty
Thousand
Pesos
(Php420,000.00) for the 200 square meters as fair,
equitable, and just compensation with legal interest at
12% per annum from the taking of the possession of the
property, subject to the payment of all unpaid real
property taxes and other relevant taxes, if there be any;
4) Plaintiff is likewise ordered to pay the defendant
consequential damages which shall include the value of
the transfer tax necessary for the transfer of the subject
property from the name of the defendant to that of the
plaintiff;
5) The Office of the Register of Deeds of Valenzuela City,
Metro Manila is directed to annotate this Decision in
Transfer Certificate of Title No. V-13790 registered
under the name of Arlene R. Soriano.
Let a certified true copy of this decision be recorded in the
Registry of Deeds of Valenzuela City.

Decision

-4-

G.R. No. 211666

Records of this case show that the Land Bank Managers Check
Nos. 0000016913 dated January 21, 2011 in the amount of Php400,000.00
and 0000017263 dated April 28, 2011 in the amount of Php20,000.00
issued by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) are
already stale. Thus, the said Office is hereby directed to issue another
Managers Check in the total amount Php420,000.00 under the name of
the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City
earmarked for the instant case.10

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration maintaining that

pursuant to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Circular No. 799, Series of
2013, which took effect on July 1, 2013, the interest rate imposed by the
RTC on just compensation should be lowered to 6% for the instant case falls
under a loan or forbearance of money.11 In its Order12 dated March 10, 2014,
the RTC reduced the interest rate to 6% per annum not on the basis of the
aforementioned Circular, but on Article 2209 of the Civil Code, viz.:
However, the case of National Power Corporation v. Honorable
Zain B. Angas is instructive.
In the aforementioned case law, which is similar to the instant
case, the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule that it is well-settled that
the aforequoted provision of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular applies
only to a loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits. However, the
term judgments as used in Section 1 of the Usury Law and the previous
Central Bank Circular No. 416, should be interpreted to mean only
judgments involving loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits,
following the principle of ejusdem generis. And applying said rule on
statutory construction, the general term judgments can refer only to
judgments in cases involving loans or forbearance of any money, goods,
or credits. Thus, the High Court held that, Art. 2209 of the Civil Code, and
not the Central Bank Circular, is the law applicable.
Art. 2009 of the Civil Code reads:
If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum
of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for
damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be
the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence
of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per
annum.
Further in that case, the Supreme Court explained that the
transaction involved is clearly not a loan or forbearance of money, goods
or credits but expropriation of certain parcels of land for a public purpose,
the payment of which is without stipulation regarding interest, and the
interest adjudged by the trial court is in the nature of indemnity for
damages. The legal interest required to be paid on the amount of just
10
11
12

Rollo, pp. 30-32.

Id. at 33.
Supra note 2.

Decision

-5-

G.R. No. 211666

compensation for the properties expropriated is manifestly in the form of

indemnity for damages for the delay in the payment thereof. It ultimately
held that Art. 2209 of the Civil Code shall apply.13

On May 12, 2014, petitioner filed the instant petition invoking the
following arguments:
I.
RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE LEGAL INTEREST OF
6% PER ANNUM ON THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS THERE WAS NO DELAY ON THE
PART OF PETITIONER.
II.
BASED ON THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997
AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, IT IS RESPONDENTS
OBLIGATION TO PAY THE TRANSFER TAXES.

Petitioner maintains that 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 computed
from the time the property is taken up to the time when compensation is
actually paid or deposited with the court.14 Thus, legal interest applies only
when the property was taken prior to the deposit of payment with the court
and only to the extent that there is delay in payment. In the instant case,
petitioner posits that since it was able to deposit with the court the amount
representing the zonal value of the property before its taking, it cannot be
said to be in delay, and thus, there can be no interest due on the payment of
just compensation.15 Moreover, petitioner alleges that since the entire
subject property was expropriated and not merely a portion thereof, it did not
suffer an impairment or decrease in value, rendering the award of
consequential damages nugatory. Furthermore, petitioner claims that
contrary to the RTCs instruction, transfer taxes, in the nature of Capital
Gains Tax and Documentary Stamp Tax, necessary for the transfer of the
subject property from the name of the respondent to that of the petitioner are
liabilities of respondent and not petitioner.
The petition is partly meritorious.
At the outset, it must be noted that the RTCs reliance on National
Power Corporation v. Angas is misplaced for the same has already been
overturned by our more recent ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals,16
13
14
15
16

Rollo, pp. 33-34. (Citations omitted)

Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al., 433 Phil. 106, 122 (2002).
Rollo, p. 16.
Supra note 13.

Decision

-6-

G.R. No. 211666

wherein we held that the payment of just compensation for the expropriated
property amounts to an effective forbearance on the part of the State, to wit:
Aside from this ruling, Republic notably overturned the
Courts previous ruling in National Power Corporation v. Angas which
held that just compensation due for expropriated properties is not a
loan or forbearance of money but indemnity for damages for the
delay in payment; since the interest involved is in the nature of
damages rather than earnings from loans, then Art. 2209 of the Civil
Code, which fixes legal interest at 6%, shall apply.
In Republic, the Court recognized that the just compensation
due to the landowners for their expropriated property amounted to an
effective forbearance on the part of the State. Applying the Eastern
Shipping Lines ruling, the Court fixed the applicable interest rate at 12%
per annum, computed from the time the property was taken until the full
amount of just compensation was paid, in order to eliminate the issue of
the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value of the currency over
time. In the Courts own words:
The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was
correct in imposing interest[s] on the zonal value of the
property to be computed from the time petitioner instituted
condemnation proceedings and "took" the property in
September 1969. This allowance of interest on the amount
found to be the value of the property as of the time of the
taking computed, being an effective forbearance, at 12%
per annum should help eliminate the issue of the constant
fluctuation and inflation of the value of the currency over
time.
We subsequently upheld Republics 12% per annum interest rate
on the unpaid expropriation compensation in the following cases: Reyes v.
National Housing Authority, Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,
Republic v. Court of Appeals, Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,
Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-Bondoc, and Curata v. Philippine
Ports Authority.17

Effectively, therefore, the debt incurred by the government on account

of the taking of the property subject of an expropriation constitutes a
forbearance18 which runs contrary to the trial courts opinion that the same is
in the nature of indemnity for damages calling for the application of Article
2209 of the Civil Code. Nevertheless, in line with the recent circular of the
Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP-MB) No. 799,
Series of 2013, effective July 1, 2013, the prevailing rate of interest for loans
or forbearance of money is six percent (6%) per annum, in the absence of an
express contract as to such rate of interest.
17

Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 647 Phil. 251,
274-275 (2010). (Emphasis supplied)
18
Sy v. Local Government of Quezon City, G.R. No. 202690, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 621, 631.

Decision

-7-

G.R. No. 211666

Notwithstanding the foregoing, We find that the imposition of interest

in this case is unwarranted in view of the fact that as evidenced by the
acknowledgment receipt19 signed by the Branch Clerk of Court, petitioner
was able to deposit with the trial court the amount representing the zonal
value of the property before its taking. As often ruled by this Court, the
award of interest is imposed in the nature of damages for delay in payment
which, in effect, makes the obligation on the part of the government one of
forbearance to ensure prompt payment of the value of the land and limit the
opportunity loss of the owner.20 However, when there is no delay in the
payment of just compensation, We have not hesitated in deleting the
imposition of interest thereon for the same is justified only in cases where
delay has been sufficiently established.21
The records of this case reveal that petitioner did not delay in its
payment of just compensation as it had deposited the pertinent amount in
full due to respondent on January 24, 2011, or four (4) months before the
taking thereof, which was when the RTC ordered the issuance of a Writ of
Possession and a Writ of Expropriation on May 27, 2011. The amount
deposited was deemed by the trial court to be just, fair, and equitable, taking
into account the well-established factors in assessing the value of land, such
as its size, condition, location, tax declaration, and zonal valuation as
determined by the BIR. Considering, therefore, the prompt payment by the
petitioner of the full amount of just compensation as determined by the RTC,
We find that the imposition of interest thereon is unjustified and should be
deleted.
Similarly, the award of consequential damages should likewise be
deleted in view of the fact that the entire area of the subject property is being
expropriated, and not merely a portion thereof, wherein such remaining
portion suffers an impairment or decrease in value, as enunciated in
Republic of the Philippines v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,22 thus:
x x x The general rule is that the just compensation to which the owner of
the condemned property is entitled to is the market value. Market value is
that sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and
an owner willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be
paid by the buyer and received by the seller. The general rule, however,
is modified where only a part of a certain property is expropriated. In
such a case, the owner is not restricted to compensation for the
19

Rollo, p. 67.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182431, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 148,
153, citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, 515 Phil. 467, 484 (2006) citing Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Wycoco, 464 Phil. 83, 100 (2004), further citing Reyes v. National Housing Authority, 443
Phil. 603 (2003).
21
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Escandor, et. al., 647 Phil. 20, 30 (2010), citing Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Celada, 515 Phil. 467, 484 (2006); 479 SCRA 495, 512; see also Apo Fruits Corporation
and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Land Bank of the Philippines, 622 Phil. 215, 238 (2009).
22
G.R. No. 203039, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 650.
20

Decision

-8-

G.R. No. 211666

portion actually taken, he is also entitled to recover the consequential

damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property.
xxxx
No actual taking of the building is necessary to grant consequential
damages. Consequential damages are awarded if as a result of the
expropriation, the remaining property of the owner suffers from an
impairment or decrease in value. The rules on expropriation clearly
provide a legal basis for the award of consequential damages. Section 6 of
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides:
x x x The commissioners shall assess the
consequential damages to the property not taken and
deduct from such consequential damages the consequential
benefits to be derived by the owner from the public use or
public purpose of the property taken, the operation of its
franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of the
business of the corporation or person taking the property.
But in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed
exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the owner
be deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.
In B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals, we held that:
To determine just compensation, the trial court
should first ascertain the market value of the property, to
which should be added the consequential damages after
deducting therefrom the consequential benefits which may
arise from the expropriation. If the consequential benefits
exceed the consequential damages, these items should be
disregarded altogether as the basic value of the property
should be paid in every case.23

Considering that the subject property is being expropriated in its

entirety, there is no remaining portion which may suffer an impairment or
decrease in value as a result of the expropriation. Hence, the award of
consequential damages is improper.
Anent petitioners contention that it cannot be made to pay the value
of the transfer taxes in the nature of capital gains tax and documentary stamp
tax, which are necessary for the transfer of the subject property from the
name of the respondent to that of the petitioner, the same is partly
meritorious.
With respect to the capital gains tax, We find merit in petitioners
posture that pursuant to Sections 24(D) and 56(A)(3) of the 1997 National

23

Republic v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, supra, at 664-666. (Citations omitted; emphasis ours)

Decision

-9-

G.R. No. 211666

Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), capital gains tax due on the sale of real
property is a liability for the account of the seller, to wit:
Section 24. Income Tax Rates
xxxx
(D) Capital Gains from Sale of Real Property.
(1) In General. The provisions of Section 39(B)
notwithstanding, a final tax of six percent (6%) based on
the gross selling price or current fair market value as
determined in accordance with Section 6(E) of this Code,
whichever is higher, is hereby imposed upon capital gains
presumed to have been realized from the sale, exchange, or
other disposition of real property located in the Philippines,
classified as capital assets, including pacto de retro sales
and other forms of conditional sales, by individuals,
including estates and trusts: Provided, That the tax liability,
if any, on gains from sales or other disposition of real
property to the government or any of its political
subdivisions or agencies or to government-owned or
controlled corporations shall be determined either under
Section 24(A)or under this Subsection, at the option of the
taxpayer.
xxxx
Section 56. Payment and Assessment of Income Tax for
Individuals and Corporations.
(A) Payment of Tax
xxxx
(3) Payment of Capital Gains Tax. - The total
amount of tax imposed and prescribed under Section 24 (c),
24(D), 27(E)(2), 28(A)(8)(c) and 28(B)(5)(c) shall be paid
on the date the return prescribed therefor is filed by the
person liable thereto: Provided, That if the seller submits
proof of his intention to avail himself of the benefit of
exemption of capital gains under existing special laws, no
such payments shall be required : Provided, further, That in
case of failure to qualify for exemption under such special
laws and implementing rules and regulations, the tax due
on the gains realized from the original transaction shall
immediately become due and payable, subject to the
penalties prescribed under applicable provisions of this
Code: Provided, finally, That if the seller, having paid the
tax, submits such proof of intent within six (6) months from
the registration of the document transferring the real
property, he shall be entitled to a refund of such tax upon

Decision

- 10 -

G.R. No. 211666

verification of his compliance with the requirements for

such exemption.

Thus, it has been held that since capital gains is a tax on passive
income, it is the seller, not the buyer, who generally would shoulder the
tax.24 Accordingly, the BIR, in its BIR Ruling No. 476-2013, dated
December 18, 2013, constituted the DPWH as a withholding agent to
withhold the six percent (6%) final withholding tax in the expropriation of
real property for infrastructure projects. As far as the government is
concerned, therefore, the capital gains tax remains a liability of the seller
since it is a tax on the seller's gain from the sale of the real estate.25
As to the documentary stamp tax, however, this Court finds
inconsistent petitioners denial of liability to the same. Petitioner cites
Section 196 of the 1997 NIRC as its basis in saying that the documentary
stamp tax is the liability of the seller, viz.:
SECTION 196.
Stamp Tax on Deeds of Sale and
Conveyances of Real Property. - On all conveyances, deeds, instruments,
or writings, other than grants, patents or original certificates of
adjudication issued by the Government, whereby any land, tenement or
other realty sold shall be granted, assigned, transferred or otherwise
conveyed to the purchaser, or purchasers, or to any other person or persons
designated by such purchaser or purchasers, there shall be collected a
documentary stamp tax, at the rates herein below prescribed, based on the
consideration contracted to be paid for such realty or on its fair market
value determined in accordance with Section 6(E) of this Code, whichever
is higher: Provided, That when one of the contracting parties is the
Government, the tax herein imposed shall be based on the actual
consideration:
(a)
When the consideration, or value received or
contracted to be paid for such realty, after making proper
allowance of any encumbrance, does not exceed One
thousand pesos (P1,000), Fifteen pesos (P15.00).
(b)
For each additional One thousand pesos
(P1,000), or fractional part thereof in excess of One
thousand pesos (P1,000) of such consideration or value,
Fifteen pesos (P15.00).
When it appears that the amount of the documentary stamp tax
payable hereunder has been reduced by an incorrect statement of the
consideration in any conveyance, deed, instrument or writing subject to
such tax the Commissioner, provincial or city Treasurer, or other revenue
officer shall, from the assessment rolls or other reliable source of
24

Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 173425,
September 4, 2012, 679 SCRA 566, 586, citing Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, 602 Phil. 100, 123 (2009).
25
Chua v. Court of Appeals, 449 Phil. 25, 50 (2003).

Decision

- 11 -

G.R. No. 211666

information, assess the property of its true market value and collect the
proper tax thereon.

Yet, a perusal of the provision cited above does not explicitly impute
the obligation to pay the documentary stamp tax on the seller. In fact,
according to the BIR, all the parties to a transaction are primarily liable for
the documentary stamp tax, as provided by Section 2 of BIR Revenue
Regulations No. 9-2000, which reads:26
SEC. 2. Nature of the Documentary Stamp Tax and Persons Liable
for the Tax.
(a) In General. - The documentary stamp taxes
under Title VII of the Code is a tax on certain
transactions. It is imposed against "the person making,
signing, issuing, accepting, or transferring" the
document or facility evidencing the aforesaid
transactions. Thus, in general, it may be imposed on the
transaction itself or upon the document underlying such
act. Any of the parties thereto shall be liable for the full
amount of the tax due: Provided, however, that as
between themselves, the said parties may agree on who
shall be liable or how they may share on the cost of the tax.
(b) Exception. - Whenever one of the parties to the
taxable transaction is exempt from the tax imposed under
Title VII of the Code, the other party thereto who is not
exempt shall be the one directly liable for the tax.27

As a general rule, therefore, any of the parties to a transaction shall be

liable for the full amount of the documentary stamp tax due, unless they
agree among themselves on who shall be liable for the same.
In this case, there is no agreement as to the party liable for the
documentary stamp tax due on the sale of the land to be expropriated. But
while petitioner rejects any liability for the same, this Court must take note
of petitioners Citizens Charter,28 which functions as a guide for the
procedure to be taken by the DPWH in acquiring real property through
expropriation under RA 8974. The Citizens Charter, issued by
petitioner DPWH itself on December 4, 2013, explicitly provides that the
documentary stamp tax, transfer tax, and registration fee due on the
transfer of the title of land in the name of the Republic shall be
shouldered by the implementing agency of the DPWH, while the capital
26

Philacor Credit Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 169899, February 6,
2013, 690 SCRA 28, 38, citing BIR Revenue Regulations No. 9-2000, November 22, 2000.
27
Emphasis ours.
28
http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/pdf/DPWH%20Citizen's%20Charter.pdf. (last accessed February 12,
2015).

Decision

- 12 -

G .R. No . 2 11 666

gams tax sha ll be paid by the affected property owner. 29 Thus, while
there is no specific agreement between petitioner and respondent,
petitioner's issuance of the Citizen's Charter serves as its notice to the public
as to the procedure it shall generally take in cases of expropriation under RA
8974. Accordingly, it will be rather unjust for this Court to blindly accede to
petitioner's vague rejection of liability in the face of its issuance of the
Citizen's Charter, which contains a clear and uneq uivocal assumption of
accountability for the documentary stamp tax. Had petitioner provided this
Court with more convincing basis, apart from a mere citation of an indefinite
provision of the 1997 NIRC, showing that it should be respondent-seller
who shall be liable for the documentary stamp tax due on the sale of the
subj ect property, its rejection of the payment of the same could have been
sustained.

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant pet1t10n 1s

PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision and Order, dated November 15,
201 3 and March 10, 2014, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court,
Valenzuela City, Branch 270, in Civil Case No. 140-V-10 are hereby
MODIFIED , in that the imposition of interest on the payment of just
compensation as well as the award of consequential damages are deleted . In
addition, respondent Arlene R. Soriano is ORDERED to pay for the capital
gains tax due on the transfer of the expropriated property, while the
documentary stamp tax, transfer tax, and registration fee shall be for the
acco unt of petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

~
.PERALTA

WE CONCUR:

29

DPW l-I Cit izen 's C harter, id. , p. 22.

- 13 -

Decision

G.R. No . 211666

,-

Associate Justice

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the o6inion of the
Court's Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice