[ G.R. No. 224760. October 06, 2021 ]
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CORAZON M. VILLEGAS, RESPONDENT.
SEPARATE OPINION
CAGUIOA, J.:
I concur with the ponencia's computation of just compensation, in accordance with the formula prescribed under Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998.1 I likewise wholly agree that the award of interest shall be computed only on the unpaid balance of the just compensation.2
However, I have reservations with respect to the ponencia's application of the rates prescribed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) of twelve percent (12%) per annum until June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum thereafter,3 and corollarily, the ponencia's categorization of delay in the payment of just compensation as a forbearance of money.4 On this score, I humbly submit that there is a need to revisit the previous categorization of delay in the payment of just compensation as a forbearance on the part of the State, and its implications on the imposition of legal interest.
As has been settled in jurisprudence, not all obligations consisting in the payment of a sum of money are a forbearance within the authority and contemplation of the BSP, since the term "forbearance" must be narrowly construed within the context of the Usury Law. In other words, for a payment of a sum of money to be considered a forbearance thereof, it must involve: (1) an agreement or contractual obligation; (2) to refrain from enforcing payment or to extend the period for the payment of; (3) an obligation that has become due and demandable; and (4) in return for some compensation, i.e., interest. Contrarily, since proceedings for the determination of just compensation have nothing to do with usury, the BSP-prescribed rates should not apply.
Furthermore, consistent with the primary definition of just compensation as the amount due the property owner in order to restore and make him "whole' as he was prior to the taking,5 the interests that accrue as a result of the expropriation must be for the account of the State, not because delay of payment is an effective forbearance of money, but because a compensation that does not take into account these accruing interests which are attached to the forced sale of one's property by expropriation is not one that can be deemed to be truly "just".
Thus, while I agree that interest is indeed due on the amount of just compensation that respondent Corazon M. Villegas is entitled to for the expropriation of her property through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, I disagree that the principle behind said appropriate accrual is due to the fact that delayed payment of just compensation is in the concept of a forbearance of money on the part of the State. Stated differently, the legal interest that accrues on the amount which is determined as just compensation is part and parcel of the just compensation itself, in the chief sense of the word.
Under these premises and for lack of any other convenient metric, I find it reasonable to impose, by analogy, the legal interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum under Article 2209 of the Civil Code on the unpaid balance of the just compensation. Such interest is to run from the date of taking, or September 29, 2004, until full payment of the balance.
Footnotes
1 REVISED RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE VALUATION OF LANDS VOLUNTARILY OFFERED OR COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT No. 6657.
2 Ponencia, p. 18, citing Evergreen Manufacturing Corporation v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 218628 & 218631, September 6, 2017, 839 SCRA 200.
3 Id.
4 Id. at 17, citing Apo Fruits Corporation v. Landbank of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 217985-86 & 218020-21, March 21, 2018, 859 SCRA 620.
5 Republic v. Decena, G.R. No. 212786, July 30, 2018, 874 SCRA 408.1âшphi1
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
