FACTS: On October 20, 2010, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), filed a Complaint 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 Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. V-13790. 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.
Petitioner duly deposited to the Acting Branch Clerk of Court the amount of ₱420,000.00 representing 100% of the zonal value of the subject property. Consequently, in an Order 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.
Records of this case show that the Land Bank Manager’s 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 Manager’s 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.
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. In its Order 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 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.
A.) WON THE INTEREST RATE SHOULD BE BASED UNDER THE CIVIL CODE.
B.) WON THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX IS PAYABLE BY THE SELLER.
C.) WON THE DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX IS PAYABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY..
A.) NO. We subsequently upheld Republic’s 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. Effectively, therefore, the debt incurred by the government on account of the taking of the property subject of an expropriation constitutes a forbearance which runs contrary to the trial court’s 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.
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 receipt 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. 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.
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.
B.) YES. 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 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. 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.
C.) YES. 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.1âwphi1 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.
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 petitioner’s Citizen’s Charter, which functions as a guide for the procedure to be taken by the DPWH in acquiring real property through expropriation under RA 8974. The Citizen’s 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 gains tax shall be paid by the affected property owner. 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.