SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 232169. March 8, 2023.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,
petitioner, vs. CASIMIRO * TAMPARONG, JR., respondent.

DECISION

M.V. LOPEZ, J : p

What more injustice can be caused to a landowner who, up to the

time of their death, was not able to fully enjoy the benefits of the land
taken from them by the government than to shortchange them with the
delay in the payment of just compensation.
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated May 30,
2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 06537-MIN,
which affirmed the Order 3 dated June 25, 2014 of the Regional Trial
Court of Cagayan de Oro City (RTC), Branch 20 (RTC, Br. 20) in Civil
Case No. 99-074, fixing the interest rate to be included in the just
compensation at 12% per annum.
This case stemmed from the expropriation proceedings initiated
by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) through a
Complaint 4 filed on February 2, 1999, subject of which was a 7,555-
square meter portion of a parcel of land in Barangay Kauswagan,
Cagayan de Oro City, owned by Casimiro Tamparong, Jr. (Tamparong).
The property was to be used for the Cagayan de Oro Third Bridge and
Approaches project of the DPWH. 5
On November 27, 2000, the RTC, Branch 24 (RTC, Br. 24)
issued an Order of Expropriation, 6 declaring the Republic of the
Philippines' (Republic) lawful right to take the property sought to be
expropriated for public use or purpose. 7 On November 29, 2000, the
RTC, Br. 24 issued an Order 8 to immediately place the Republic in
possession of the property. Years of laborious hearings and exchange
of pleadings, however, ensued for the determination of the just
compensation. 9 Eventually, the RTC, Br. 20 put to rest the issue on the
proper just compensation in its Resolution 10 dated January 21, 2010 as
follows:ETHIDa

WHEREFORE, x x x [the Republic] is hereby

directed/ordered to pay [Tamparong] the just compensation of
[PHP]3,500.00 [per square] meter multiplied by [the] 7,555
[square] meter lot subject to the provisions of the Court Order
dated December 18, 2008 wherein [the Republic] had already
paid the amount of [PHP]9,443,750.00 as provisional deposit.
The payment shall involve the amount fixed in the judgment and
 shall include legal interest from the taking of possession of
the property until payment is made ([Section] 10[,] Rule 67,
Rules of Court; Benguet Consolidated vs. Republic[,] [G.R. No.]
712412[,] August 15, 1986[,] 43 SCRA 467)[.]
SO ORDERED. 11 (Emphasis supplied)
No motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed; hence, the
Resolution dated January 21, 2010 became final and executory. 12 The
Resolution, however, did not conclude the proceedings between the
parties. Controversy on the computation of the remaining balance arose
at the execution stage. A Writ of Execution 13 was issued on March 7,
2013, indicating PHP27,651,129.77 as the remaining amount to be paid
to Tamparong. 14 The amount was based on the computation submitted
by Tamparong in his Motion for Execution of Judgment. 15 Upon the
Republic's motion for clarification of the amount to be executed, 16 an
Amended Writ of Execution 17 was issued on September 13, 2013,
which deleted the exact amount previously indicated, and merely
echoed the disposition in the Resolution 18 dated January 21, 2010:
NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to
cause the [REPUBLIC] to pay [TAMPARONG] the just
compensation of [PHP]3,500 [per square meter] x 7,555 [square
meters] deducting the amount of [PHP]9,443,750.00 as
provisional deposit, the payment shall involve the amount fixed
in the Judgment and shall include legal interest from taking
of possession of property until payment is made. 19
(Emphasis supplied)
Thereafter, in a letter 20 dated January 13, 2014, the DPWH
communicated to Tamparong's counsel, Atty. Joseph M. Baduel (Atty.
Baduel), its own computation of the remaining balance to be executed,
which included interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the time of
the taking of the property and 12% per annum from the finality of
judgment until December 11, 2013. 21
Atty. Baduel responded through a letter 22 dated February 18,
2014, requesting for the immediate payment of the remaining balance
as stated in the DPWH computation, subject to the adjustment of the
interest imposed up to the actual date of the full satisfaction since the
computed amount was based on the supposition that it was already
satisfied by December 11, 2013. It is noteworthy that the request for
immediate payment was due to his client's advanced age (over 80
years old at that time) and medical condition. 23 Payment, however,
remained undelivered. ATICcS

On March 5, 2014, Tamparong, through counsel, filed a Motion

for Recomputation, 24 asking the RTC, Br. 20 to direct the DPWH to
come up with a new computation, which includes interest at the rate of
12%, not 6%, per annum from the time of the taking of the property to
conform with prevailing jurisprudence. 25 In an Order 26 dated June 25,
2014, the RTC, Br. 20 ruled:
[C]onsidering that the [Republic] has been delayed in the
payment of the just compensation of the property subject of this
expropriation proceedings, the Court hereby ordered that the
legal interest is thus fixed at 12% per annum and hereby
 orders the [Republic] to pay [Tamparong] the amount of the just
compensation reckoned from the date of resolution of the Court
dated January 21, 2010 at 12% interest rate per annum less the
amount already paid and received by [Tamparong]. 27
(Emphasis supplied)
The Republic moved for reconsideration, 28 arguing that the 12%
legal interest is imposed only "in the nature of damages for delay in
payment" 29 of the just compensation. The Republic claimed that there
was no such delay in this case considering that it had already made
substantial provisional payments. Hence, it posited that the imposition
of the legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum was unwarranted. 30
The Motion for Reconsideration was denied in an Order 31 dated August
26, 2014, prompting the Republic to file a Petition for Certiorari 32 before
the CA with the same argument that there was no delay in the payment
of just compensation because provisional payments were made. 33
In its assailed Decision, 34 the CA found no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC, Br. 20 in imposing legal interest at the
rate of 12% from the taking of the property until full satisfaction. 35
Hence, this Petition, 36 which reiterates the Republic's claim that there
was no basis to impose the legal interest of 12% as there was no delay
in the payment of the just compensation in view of the provisional
payments made. The Republic insinuates that the delay is attributable
to Tamparong's refusal to accept the remaining balance computed by
the DPWH with his conformity when immediate payment was requested
by his counsel. 37 Hence, the Republic impels the Court to direct
Tamparong to accept payment in the exact amount stated in the DPWH
computation. 38
Tamparong, on the other hand, imputes 39 bad faith upon the
DPWH for giving a computation which is not in accord with
jurisprudence on the proper interest to be imposed in just compensation
cases. Tamparong explains that he may have initially acceded to the
6% interest in the DPWH computation, but it was only because he was
"already 89 years old, sickly and bedridden," 40 wanting to enjoy the
fruits of his property. Since the balance remains unpaid, Tamparong
now insists on the imposition of the proper interest rate, i.e., 12%, not
6%, per annum from the time of the taking of the property. Tamparong
adds that the Republic ought to know the prevailing rule on the matter
considering the number of expropriation cases it has dealt with in the
past. 41
Synthesized from the foregoing arguments, the pivotal issue is
whether the imposition of 12% legal interest was justified. aDSIHc

We answer in the affirmative.

Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that "[n]o
property shall be taken for public use without just compensation." This
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. 42 Ideally, thus, just compensation means full payment of the
value of the property immediately upon its taking. However, the
determination of just compensation is determined judicially, 43 which
more often than not, takes time after the government had already taken
possession of the property. Consequently, in the interim, the property
owner suffers, not only the deprivation of their land, but also its use,
fruits, or income. To remedy the impasse, applicable laws or rules on
expropriation require a provisional payment upon the date of the taking
or the filing of the complaint. 44 The difference then between the court-
determined final amount and the provisional payment incurs legal
interest in line with the constitutional mandate on eminent domain and
as a basic measure of fairness, otherwise, the compensation would not
be "just." 45
In Republic v. CA, 46 we underscored the need for the prompt
payment of just compensation, including the payment of interest to
compensate for any delay in giving full payment for the land already
taken. We ruled:
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, i[f] 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. 47 (Emphasis supplied)
It is undisputed that Tamparong has not yet been fully paid his
just compensation because the parties are still in disagreement as to
the proper computation of the remaining balance. For this reason,
Tamparong is entitled to the legal interest on the unpaid balance. In
Evergreen Manufacturing Corporation v. Republic, 48 we emphatically
ruled that:HEITAD

The Government's initial payment of just

compensation does not excuse it from avoiding payment of
interest on the difference between the adjudged amount of
just compensation and the initial payment.
The initial payment scheme as a prerequisite for the
issuance of the writ of possession under [Republic Act (RA) No.]
8974 only provides the Government flexibility to immediately
take the property for public purpose or public use pending the
court's final determination of just compensation. Section 4 (a) of
RA [No.] 8974 only addresses the Government's need to
immediately enter the privately[-]owned property in order to
avoid delay in the implementation of national infrastructure
projects.
Otherwise, Section 4 of RA [No.] 8974 would be
repugnant to Section 9, Article [III] of the 1987 Constitution
which mandates that private property shall not be taken for
 public use without just compensation. To reiterate, the
Constitution commands the Government to pay the property
owner no less than the full and fair equivalent of the property
from the date of the taking. 49 (Emphasis supplied)
As to the proper interest rate to be imposed, we have explained
that the interest involved in just compensation cases is not consensual
in nature, or that stipulated in signed agreements between contracting
parties. The interest to which the landowner is entitled "runs as a matter
of law and follows as a matter of course from the right of the landowner
to be placed in as good a position as money can accomplish as of the
date of the taking." 50 We have decisively ruled that:
[T]he delay in the payment of just compensation is a
forbearance of money and, as such, is necessarily entitled to
earn interest. Thus, the difference between the final amount
as adjudged by the Court, x x x and the initial payment
made by the government x x x — which is part and parcel of
the just compensation due to the property owner — should
earn legal interest as a forbearance of money. x x x [W]ith
respect to the amount of interest on this difference between the
initial payment and the final amount of just compensation, as
adjudged by the Court, we have upheld, in recent
pronouncements, the imposition of 12% interest rate from the
time of the taking, when the property owner was deprived
of the property, until July 1, 2013, when the legal interest on
loans and forbearance of money was reduced from 12% to 6%
per annum by [the] Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas [BSP] Circular
No. 799. Accordingly, from July 1, 2013 onwards, the legal
interest on the difference between the final amount and
initial payment is 6% per annum. 51 (Emphasis supplied)
The Court has consistently applied these rates in expropriation
cases, 52 and the Republic did not give us any compelling reason to
depart from the established rule. 53
At this juncture, we stress that the delayed full payment cannot
be blamed on Tamparong only because he insists on the computation
of the remaining balance based on prevailing jurisprudence. Rather, it is
the Republic's intransigence that caused the delay, warranting the
imposition of legal interest.
DETACa

First. The DPWH gave Tamparong a specious computation. At

first blush, the letter to which the DPWH computation was attached
would seem to embody the final and executory judgment of the RTC,
Br. 20 on the proper amount of just compensation. A careful scrutiny,
however, proves otherwise. The DPWH letter is reproduced below for
proper context:
RE: Full Payment of Just Compensation in Civil Case No.
99-074 (Republic of the Philippines vs. Casimiro
Tamparong Jr. for Expropriation)
Sir:
Pursuant to the judgment dated January 21, 2010,
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro
City, Branch 20 and the subsequent issuance of the
Amended Writ of Execution on September 13, 2013,
 attached herewith is a revised copy of our computation as
stated in the Statement of Payment as of December 11, 2013
for the full payment of just compensation for the above-titled
case.
We would like to advise you that per our computation, the
remaining amount payable for just compensation as of
December 11, 2013 is SEVENTEEN MILLION TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY[-]THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
NINETY[-]SIX AND 76/100 (PHP17,253,596.76) PESOS. Kindly
signify your conformity and approval by signing on the space
provided below the Statement of Payment and return the same
to us at the soonest possible time. 54 (Emphasis supplied)
Apparently, the computation in the Statement of Payment 55
signified that it is in accord with the RTC, Br. 20's ruling. However, the
remaining balance computed by the DPWH included interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the time of the taking of the property. 56 This is
inconsistent with the RTC, Br. 20 Resolution dated January 21, 2010
and the Amended Writ of Execution, which ordered the imposition of
legal interest. The prevailing legal interest at that time was 12%, not
6%. It was only on July 1, 2013 when the legal interest rate was
reduced to 6% under BSP Circular No. 799. 57 Moreover, the DPWH
computed interest only up to December 11, 2013, 58 but the award
required imposition of legal interest from the taking of the possession of
the property until full payment is made. 59 aScITE

Second. Desperate to get paid, Tamparong agreed to accept

without reservation the offer of the DPWH to put an end to the
protracted proceedings considering his age and frail medical condition.
The CA Resolution 60 dated August 3, 2016 thus ordered the referral to
the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC):
On March 2, 2016, [Tamparong], through his counsel,
filed a motion for early resolution considering that he is
already 89 years old, sickly[,] and bedridden.
On May 19, 2016, [the CA] received a Manifestation filed
by [Tamparong], informing that he now accepts, without
reservation the offer of [the Republic] in the amount of
[PHP]17,253,596.76 representing the balance due to settle
the full amount of just compensation. He further requests
for the immediate payment of the aforementioned amount.
In view of [Tamparong's] acceptance of the monetary
offer of [the Republic], let this case be referred to the Philippine
Mediation Center (PMC), the soonest possible time. The PMC is
hereby directed to issue the Notice to Appear directly to the
parties.
The mediator shall endeavor to complete the mediation
proceedings within 30 days from the date of the initial mediation
proceedings. The Mediator is hereby directed to submit to the
[CA] a report on the result of the proceedings at the end of the
mediation period. If mediation is successful, the Mediator shall
forthwith submit to [the CA] the original Compromise Agreement
entered into by the parties or alternatively, in the appropriate
case, a satisfaction of claim or withdrawal of appeal. Such
 agreement shall be the basis for the rendition of a decision
based on the parties' compromise agreement, which may be
enforced by execution or may result in the dismissal of the
appeal. 61 (Emphases supplied)
Despite the court order, no compromise agreement was reached.
The Republic offered no explanation for its refusal to settle in the
amount it has consistently invoked, i.e., PHP17,253,596.76. Meanwhile,
the unfortunate denouement came about: Tamparong succumbed to
death on December 3, 2018 62 and still remained unpaid his rightful
compensation for more than 22 years now. 63 What more injustice can
be caused to a landowner who, up to the time of his death, was not able
to fully enjoy the benefits of the land taken from him by the government
than to shortchange him with the delay in the payment of just
compensation. Time, indeed, is costly to squander. Delays, justified or
otherwise, have irreversible consequences.
All given, the RTC, Br. 20, as affirmed by the CA, did not err or
gravely abuse its discretion in fixing the interest to be included in the
just compensation at the prevailing legal rate of 12% per annum from
the taking of the property. 64 Applying the prevailing jurisprudential
rules, however, we clarify that the 12% interest should be imposed
upon the unpaid balance from the taking of the property, i.e., upon the
issuance of the Order 65 immediately placing the Republic in possession
of the property on November 29, 2000 until June 30, 2013 only.
Thereafter, or from July 1, 2013 until full payment, the legal interest is
reduced to 6% per annum. CAIHTE

FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is

DENIED. The Decision dated May 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 06537-MIN, which affirmed the Order dated June 25,
2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 20
(RTC) in Civil Case No. 99-074 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in
that legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum is imposed upon the
unpaid balance of the just compensation as determined by the RTC in
its Resolution dated January 21, 2010 from November 29, 2000 up to
June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full
satisfaction.
The case is REMANDED to the RTC for the proper determination
of the amount of remaining balance to be executed in accordance with
this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, Lazaro-Javier, J.Y. Lopez and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* "Casimero" in some parts of the rollo.
1. Rollo, pp. 10-33.
2. Id. at 41-47. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Rafael
Antonio M. Santos.
3. Id. at 144-147. Penned by Judge Bonifacio M. Macabaya.
4. Id. at 48-53.
5. Id. at 12 and 48-49.
6. Id. at 77-85. Penned by Presiding Judge Leonardo N. Demecillo.
7. Id. at 84.
8. Id. at 86.
9. Id. at 13-15.
10. Id. at 107-114. Penned by Presiding Judge Florencia D. Sealana-
Abbu.
11. Id. at 114.
12. See Order dated April 16, 2010; id. at 119.
13. Id. at 127-128.
14. Id. at 128.
15. Dated April 7, 2010. Id. at 115-118.
16. See Order dated September 11, 2013; id. at 129.
17. Id. at 133-134.
18. Id. at 107-114.
19. Id. at 134.
20. Id. at 135-136.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 137-138.
23. Id. at 137.
24. Id. at 139-141.
25. Id. at 139-140.
26. Id. at 144-147.
27. Id. at 147.
28. See Motion for Reconsideration (re Order dated June 25, 2014)
dated July 21, 2014; id. at 148-158.
29. Id. at 156.
30. Id. at 155-156.
31. Id. at 159-162.
32. Id. at 163-189.
33. Id. at 180-186.
34. Id. at 41-47.
35. Id. at 45-47.
36. Id. at 10-33.
37. Id. at 27-30.
38. Id. at 31.
39. See Comment dated October 19, 2017; id. at 267-279.
40. Id. at 273.
41. Id. at 272-273.
42. Republic v. Mupas, 769 Phil. 21, 194 (2015) [Per J. Brion, En Banc].
43. Evergreen Manufacturing Corporation v. Republic, 817 Phil. 1048,
1064 (2017) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
44. See Section 2, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court which provides:
Section 2. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized
government depositary. — Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time
thereafter and after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall have
the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property
involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an
amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of
taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders of the court. Such
deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the
deposit of a certificate of deposit of a government bank of the Republic
of the Philippines payable on demand to the authorized government
depositary.
xxx xxx xxx
See also Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974, entitled "AN ACT TO
FACILITATE THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, SITE OR
LOCATION FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on November 7,
2000, which provides:
Section 4. Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings. — Whenever it is
necessary to acquire real property for the right-of-way, site or location for
any national government infrastructure project through expropriation, the
appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the expropriation
proceedings before the proper court under the following guidelines:
(a) Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the
defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of
the property the amount equivalent to the sum of (1) one hundred
percent (100%) of the value of the property based on the current
relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); and (2)
the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined under
Section 7 hereof;
(b) In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no
zonal valuation, the BIR is hereby mandated within the period of sixty
(60) days from the date of the expropriation case, to come up with a
zonal valuation for said area; and
(c) In case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of
utmost urgency and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the
area concerned, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the
owner of the property its proffered value taking into consideration the
standards prescribed in Section 5 hereof.
45. Republic v. Mupas, 769 Phil. 21, 195 (2015) [Per J. Brion, En Banc].
46. 433 Phil. 106 (2002) [Per J. Vitug, First Division].
47. Id. at 122-123; citations omitted.
48. 817 Phil. 1048 (2017) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
49. Id. at 1067, citing Republic v. Mupas, 769 Phil. 21, 196-197 (2015)
[Per J. Brion, En Banc].
50. Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 647 Phil.
251, 284-285 (2010) [Per J. Brion, En Banc].
51. Republic v. Silvestre, 846 Phil. 599, 611 (2019) [Per J. Peralta, Third
Division].
52. National Transmission Commission v. Religious of the Virgin Mary,
G.R. No. 245266, August 1, 2022 [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division]; Republic v. DPWH, G.R. No. 244115, February 3, 2021,
<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/67365>
[Per J. Delos Santos, Third Division]; Republic v. Silvestre, id.;
Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority, 608 Phil. 9 (2009) [Per J.
Velasco, Jr., En Banc]; Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-
Bondoc, 557 Phil. 737 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, First
Division]; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial, 544 Phil. 378
(2007) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]; Republic v. CA, 494
Phil. 494 (2005) [Per J. Carpio, First Division]; Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Wycoco, 464 Phil. 83 (2004) [Per J. Ynares-
Santiago, First Division]; and Reyes v. National Housing
Authority, 443 Phil. 603 (2003) [Per J. Puno, Third Division].
53. See National Transmission Commission v. Religious of the Virgin
Mary, G.R. No. 245266, August 1, 2022 [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division].
54. Rollo, p. 135.
55. Id. at 136.
56. Id.
57. Republic v. Silvestre, 846 Phil. 599, 611 (2019) [Per J. Peralta, Third
Division].
58. Rollo, p. 27.
59. Id. at 114.
60. Id. at 290-292. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with
the concurrence of Associate Justices Ronaldo B. Martin and
Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
61. Id. at 291-292.
62. Id. at 359 and 361.
63. See Order dated November 29, 2000, id. at 86.
64. See Secretary of the DPWH v. Tecson, 758 Phil. 604, 639-640
(2015) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc]; and Nacar v. Gallery Frames,
719 Phil. 267, 282 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
 65. Rollo, p. 86. See also Republic v. Villao, G.R. No. 216723, March 9,
2022,
<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/68316>
[Per J. Rosario, Second Division]; and Republic v. Macabagdal,
823 Phil. 477, 484 (2018) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second
Division], wherein the Court ruled that legal interest shall run from
the date of the issuance of the writ of possession since it is the
date that the fact of the deprivation of property can be
established.
||| (Republic v. Tamparong, Jr., G.R. No. 232169, [March 8, 2023])