POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

Concepts, Issues, Trends

We talk about the police power, we have learned that police power regulates both
liberty, as well as property.

We will just be focusing on the regulation of the state to property. Because

eminent domain does not involve liberty, but only in so far as the property of the
individuals or company.

1. What is the meaning of eminent domain?

The meaning of eminent domain is the unavoidable process of the state to take
property for public use upon payment of just compensation.

Ordinarily, if there is an offer to buy a property, and the owner of the property
agrees with the intention of the buyer to purchase the property, and they agree on the
price, the exercise is only a matter of sale.

There is no need for the exercise of eminent domain. However, if, the landowner
does not agree with his property being purchased by the government, or if it agrees with
the purchase of the government but does not agree with the purchase price, then that is
really the problem.

The government is in need of a land in order to complete the road from one
barangay to another, or farm to market road and the land owner does not agree with the
price. And there is a possibility that the project will not be completed or the objective of
the project will not be achieved.

When this thing happened, the individual concern will be force to sell his property
when the state exercise the power of eminent domain.

The Power of Eminent domain is actually a compulsory process of the state to

take property for public use. The eminent domain is used as a when we describe the
power of the state, but in the exercise of eminent domain when we go through the
process of taking the property by filing a case in the court then we call that
expropriation.

Eminent domain is the exercise of the right, whereas in expropriation, that is now
the procedure that will be undertaking when a government exercises that right.
There is two concept here, the eminent domain and expropriation.

They are sometimes interchangeably mentioned, strictly speaking they are

different. Eminent domain speaks of the right, expropriation speaks of the proceedings
that will be undertaken to exercise that particular right.

Just like police power, eminent domain is inherent in the state. There is no need
for any constitutional or any statutory grant for the state to exercise this power. So it
comes with the existence of the state just like the police power. But there might be a
question,
 2. “Isn’t it that Article III Section 9, it provides that the property shall be taken
for public use upon payment of just compensation?
3. Isn’t it that section 9 of Article III is the authority that grants to the state
the power of eminent domain.

The Answer is NO.

Section 9 is only a limitation on the part of the state for the exercise of that right.
Just like Section 1 of Article 3, is also a limitation of police power “No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law”.
Section 9 limits the exercise that if you’re going to exercise eminent domain, it
must be within the parameters of the constitution.

Our discussion for today, we will basically deal on section 9 of Article 3, which
says, “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
The provision is not a right for the exercise, but only the limitation of the exercise.

4. Who may exercise Eminent Domain?

Just like Police Power, it is lodged with Congress. Anytime, Congress could pass a
law, for the purpose of either directly exercising eminent domain or delegating such
power to the President, to legislative bodies, local government unit, public corporations
(national housing authority, NAPOCOR< National Transmission Corporation ) Then it
may also delegate to quasi-public corporation,(like the PLDT, NGCP) the delegates of this
power are usually involves the public.
Again, it is primarily exercised by the Congress, and it could pass a law exercising
that, or it may pass a law delegating that authority to the person and entities that I’ve
mentioned.

TAKE NOTE:
When it is given to a delegate just like the exercise of Police Power, the authority
must come to a Law. There must always be a law giving that power to a delegate. Like for
example, LGU, under the LGU Code it is the local legislative body of the Sanguniang
Bayan or Panlalawigan who is given the authority to expropriate. It is not even the chief
executive. The local legislative body will have to pass an ordinance not a resolution that
will authorize the chief executive, the mayor or the governor to negotiate, and if the
negotiation is a failure, then to initiate an expropriation complaint to the owner of the
property.
(Resolution states a position or policy of a city. An ordinance is more formal
and authoritative than a resolution.)

But it is always with conformity with the provision of the Local Government Code
such as for example, there must be a valid complaint for expropriation in the proper
court, or in the RTC, and secondly, the payment of deposit or its under the Local
Government Code is 15% of the fair market value of the property based on the tax
declaration of the owner.
This is just an example that an authority to the delegate must always be in
accordance with the law.
 Police Power and Eminent Domain with respect to the question of the
exercise thereof and the payment of just compensation.

Because sometimes there is misunderstanding if it is exercise of eminent domain

or exercise of police power.
When we speak of police power, the property subject matter of the exercise is
obnoxious or could be used for obnoxious purposes. But in the exercise of eminent
domain, the property subject matter is always wholesome, useful, good, beautiful. That
is why, in police power, like for example if you are going to destroy a property because
the destruction of the property would re-down to the benefit of the majority of the
people. Then it is exercise of the Police power. However, if the exercise thereof, is for
the purpose of taking the property for it to eventually use for a wholesome
purpose, then it is an exercise of eminent domain.

EXAMPLE:
American Printing vs. Lawrence, here, the mayor ordered the destruction of a
building in order to prevent the spread of fire. The question is, “is the owner of the
building entitled for a just compensation?

ANS: No, because here, we consider the destruction of the property for the purpose
of the public and the compensation that will be given to the owner is the altruistic feeling
that he was able to help prevent the spread of fire.
But in Eminent Domain, the property that will be taken will always be for a good
purpose, wholesome and useful.

Can we question the government agencies exercising eminent domain?

If the government takes your property, can you question the necessity for the exercise?

ANS: It Depends, if the one exercising the eminent domain is Congress or legislature.
So if the congress is the one who decided that it should be made or the project should be
made across your property, that is a political question. And therefore, you cannot
question Congress, why? The project was made to cross your property.
However, if the one exercising is not the Congress but a delegate of the Congress,
(President, LGU, Public Corporation like NAPOCOR, or quasi like NGCP or PLDT) you
can question the necessity.
The expropriation, or exercise of eminent domain must always be in accordance
with law. The question on whether or not it is accordance with the law goes with it the
issue of necessity. Therefore, when the exercise is made by a delegate, necessity is a
justiciable question. You can contest that in the court.

CASE:
RP vs La Orden de Benidictus,
Fact:
It happen that the party was the San Beda University is located. The President of
the Philippines decided to extend Recto (Azcarraga before) and then it has to cross San
Beda College. Here, San Beda question the necessity because there are other areas
which Recto could pass. The question of necessity was put to test. The lower court
agreed with San Beda that there was no necessity, and the same was affirmed by the
Supreme Court. It say that, when the exercise is made by the delegate, the landowner
has the right to question the necessity for the exercise.
CASE:
City of Manila v. Chinese Community
Facts:
The same thing happen, here in this particular case, there is a need to extend the
Rizal Avenue to the point that it would cross the Chinese Cemetery. According to the
Supreme Court, since this is exercised by the delegate, the necessity for the exercised
could be question by the land owner.

When are you going to question the issue of necessity?

In Expropriation proceedings, there are 2 stages.

1. Determination of the validity of the expropriation. On the part of the
Government o agency exercising eminent domain, he has to prove that he has
the authority to expropriate the property or exercise the eminent domain. The
court will now decide on the validity of the exercise. This is the stage where the
owner of the property can question the necessity. If the issue of necessity or
the validity of the exercise has already been resolved, then the court will now
issue and order, the order of condemnation. The court now will condemn the
subject property as covered by the power of the state, the eminent domain.
From that point, the first stage is already finished.
2. The Second stage is called the determination of just compensation. Its
now the issue on how much will the landowner or the property will receive from
the government in exchange for the property that was taken. After that, would
now be the payment of just compensation.

ORDER OF CONDEMNATION – to justify if it is for the public good and there are genuine
necessity therefor of a public character.
ORDER OF PAYMENT FOR JUST COMPENSATION-

Those are the stages in expropriation proceedings. Unlike in ordinary proceedings

which is only a 1 stage proceedings, in expropriation proceedings, the court will issue
to orders; a) order of condemnation b) the order for the payment of just
compensation.
Page 133 Necessity of Exercise

Under the Constitution, it says “No Private Property shall be taken for public
purpose without just compensation.

There is a mention of private property.

Let us talk about private property.

When we speak of private property, it simply means that anything that comes in
the commerce of man is subject to expropriation. Anything that you could buy could be
subject to expropriation. It may be tangible or intangible, real property or personal
property. Anything that could come under the dominion of man.
The exceptions are:
1. You cannot expropriate money: because money is actually the just
compensation that is given to the landowner.
2. Chooses and Action: your right of action against another cannot be a subject
for expropriation. Because it is only a right given to an aggrieved person.
Can a public property be expropriated? Because under the constitution “private
property” what if it is already public?

ANS: It depends, if the one exercising expropriation is delegate, it cannot be. However, if
the one exercising is the national legislature, the public property could still be the
subject of expropriation.

Included in the meaning of private property are services. Example:

Telecommunication Services.
That’s why in several decided by the Supreme Court, a telephone lines could be a
subject of expropriation, because it will also a burden on the part of the owner of the
property to extend connectivity to the government.

CASE:
Republic vs PLDT
Facts:
The Government would like to interconnect with PLDT. The government want to
connect with the line of PLDT to be able for the government to connect with lots of
people. So to that, they have to connect to PLDT, and they would necessary use the line
of PLDT to cross to the other side. According to the Supreme Court, included in the
definition of private properties are services that will be rendered in the interconnection
between the two lines, the government and the private Sector.

CASE:
PLDT vs National telecommunication

Facts:
The ruling was also applied, involving the connectivity between the government
line and the private line.
When the private company would give its services to the government, there is
actually a taking of the property of the private sector (the PLDT) and therefore the
services rendered must be compensated. Because it is also a property owned by the
PLDT.

A very Important Concept

Concept of Taking

There is no expropriation without taking. SO what is taking?

ANS:
Whatever taking in eminent domain in constitutional sense, why in a
constitutional sense? Because taking ordinarily means the physical disposition of the
property when the owner is ousted from the property and the government has taken over
the property.
However, in Law, taking may include trespass without actual eviction of the
owner, material impairment of the value of property or prevention of the ordinary use for
which the property was intended.
CASE;
US vs. Causby
The government planes fly over private properties at such a low altitude as to
practically touch the top of the trees thereon, there would be such an interruption into
the superjacent rights of the owner as to entitle him to payment of just compensation
although there is no divestiture of title.

CASE:
Ayala de Roxas v. City of Manila
It was held that the imposition of an easement over a 3 meter strip of the plaintiffs
property could not be legally done without payment of just compensation.

CASE:
People vs. Fajardo
A municipal ordinance prohibiting construction of any building that would destroy
the view of the plaza from the highway was considered a taking under the power of
eminent domain that could not be allowed without payment of just compensation to the
owner affected.

But not all taking is compensable, like in the police power. In cases where there is a
building on the verge of collapse can be demolished for the interest of public safety and
the owner will not be entitled for just compensation.
For as long as the taking is for the welfare or for the public interest in the exercise
of police power, there will be no payment of just compensation.

But the taking under Section 9 of Article 3 does not require actual eviction or that the
owner must be ousted from the property. Its not necessary. It is not even required,
what only required is there must be a burden by the exercise of the state.
Even if the owner is staying on the property, there is already taking if he is not
anymore aloud to plant in a certain conditions. He is prohibited more than 3 meters for
example, or he is not allowed to build a house because it may destroy a view.
If the government don’t want you to build a building that will destroy a view of
certain project or interrupt some of its operation, its already a taking.

That prohibition must include payment of just compensation.

Another kind of taking, is when a person is significantly prejudice to other

people.

CASE: Richards vs. Washington Terminal

In a case where there was a tunnel was made and the exhaust emitted to the
owners of the houses of the particular community. But the majority of the damage would
only fall on the particular person, then there is a taking only to that particular person
only, because he is prejudiced more compared to another. There is a taking on the part
on the landowner.

Why is taking very important?

Because it is when the exercise of the state is already present and what is only left
now is the determination of just compensation. That’s why in the very landmark case of
Castilvee. Memorize the elements of taking, because all of these must be present to
constitute a valid taking. And why is it important?
MEMORIZE THE ELEMENTS OF TAKING

Why it is important?
Because it is here that the exercise of eminent domain has already been made.
And aside from that, this is also when we are going to recon the payment of just
compensation.

What is the case of Republic v. Castilvee

Facts:
The case provided us with the elements of valid taking.
1. The expropriator must enter a private property
2. The entry must be for more than momentary period. Hindi Basta pumunta ka lang
jan at umalis, it must be more than that, there must be an intention to stay
permanently not momentary.
3. It must be under a warrant or color of title or right or legal authority. It must be in
accordance of law. Or because the law specifically conferred upon that particular
agency the right to exercise expropriation.
4. The property must be devoted to public use or informally appropriated or
injuriously affected.
5. The utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner or to
deprive him of the beneficial enjoyment of the property.

For us to understand this elements. We are supposed to discuss the case

FACTS:
In the case, here, the government rented the property of the land owner in 1947,
so the government entered the property by virtue of the lease contract, then the contract
expired in 1959. So because of the expiration, the government was forced to file an
expropriation complaint to the court. The question is now, since the government was
already in possession of the property in 1947 although it filed a case on the court in
1949, the amount of the just compensation according to the government must be based
on the value of the property in 1947 and not in 1949. Or simply put it should be the
value of the property at the time it was taken not at the time the complaint was filed.

Contention of Castillve:
a. That the entrance and occupation by the condemnor must be for a
permanent or indefinite period
b. That in devoting the property to public use the owner was ousted from
the property and deprived of its beneficial use, were not present when the
Republic entered and occupied the Castelvvi property in 1947.
As mentioned in the case of People vs. Fajardo, the mere notice of the intention to
expropriate a particular property does not bind its owner and inhibit him from disposing
of it or otherwise dealing with it.

As mentioned also in the case of Land Bank of the Philippine v. Livioco, taking
occurs when the landowner is deprived of the use and benefits of his property, such as
when the title is transferred to the Republic.
In the case of Hacienda Luisita, taking also occurs when agricultural lands are
voluntarily offered by a landowner and approved by the Presidential Agrarian Reform
council for coverage under the Comprehensive agrarian reform program coverage
through a stock distribution scheme.
Why is it important here?
Under the rules of court, it says that the devaluation of the property shall be
determined or just compensation shall be determined at the time of the filing of the
complaint or the taking of the property whichever comes first.
So the value of the property shall be taken at the time of the taking or the filing of
the complaint. Whichever comes first. So if they are going to apply the provisions of the
rules of court, in the case at bar. The government argues that it should be in 1947 which
should be valuation period and not in 1959 when the complaint was filed.
In deciding the case, the Supreme Court held: Teka!!! No!! hindi pwede sa 1947
but only on 1959 at the time of the filing of the complaint. Because according to
Supreme Court, the taking of the property in 1947 was not in a constitutional sense, it
is not in accordance with taking under the constitution. Because in this, when the
government took the property in 1947, it was only by virtue of a lease contract and
not under a color of title or authority to take the property. The government entered as a
lessee not as an expropriator.
It was only on 1959 when they filed a case that taking should also takes place.

That’s why its very important to know the meaning of the taking of the property.

Meaning of PUBLIC USE.

There is a traditional concept of Public Use. Simple means that the effect of that is
direct in public in general.
- Means any use directly available to the general public as a matter of right and
not merely for forbearance or accommodation.
Public can demand the right to use the converted property for his direct and
personal convenience.
When you build a road, it will directly affect the public in general. But in the
present, the public use may not anymore be direct use but it will already include indirect
benefits.

EXAMPLE:
If the enjoyment of the property is given to a group of people but it would benefit
the public in general indirectly, that is included in the concept of public use.
EXAMPLE:
If you are going to remove beggars in the street, and for that reason the
government would purchase a lot and then develop a low cost housing only intended for
the beggars or the homeless in the street.
Was the property intended for public use? Maybe our impression will that it is only
for those selected homeless and beggars.

However, in this sense, the value of giving the beggars and the homeless a home,
will benefit the public in general indirectly. The people that we see in the streets are not
safe and away from dangers of vehicles.

We are indirectly benefited even if the project is only for the few group of
individuals.
Thus, the concept of public use does not only mean direct benefit but also include
indirect benefits.
JUST COMPENSATION
We are now going to the last concept of Section 9 Article III.

What do you mean by just compensation?

Just Compensation simply means a full and fair equivalent of the property taken.

How will you know if it is fair and full?

We should understand that when we speak of a full and fair equivalent, it is not
only addressed to the landowner, it must also be addressed to the government that
pays the price.
This is intended to indemnify the owner fully for the loss he has sustained as a
result of the expropriation. But we must also consider the expropriator.
Only the owner has the right for just compensation and not a LESSEE of the
expropriated land.
Just compensation on both the owner of the property as well as on the
government that will ultimately bare the cost of expropriation.

How much is full and fair?

It depends upon the circumstances of the case. And that is why, when we speak of
just compensation, it is understood to be determined by the courts. The determination of
just compensation is always a judicial prerogative. Because it is always a case to case
basis. But the parameter is that, the stand point of the landowner is that you are willing
to sell but you should not be forced the property. The valuation that you want to receive
is that something you are willing to receive it but not forced to receive it.
On the part of the Government, it must be something reasonable to the point that
it will not affect the government fund if its too much to bare, if its must be fair and just.
It must something that must be paid immediately, otherwise, if not paid immediately,
that’s not considered just. Because the government had been using it and the owner is
not paid yet. And that is something that is not Just.

How are we going to determine now the fair market value of the property?

The court will now determine the fair market value with some parameters or
factors like the location of the land, tax declaration, size and shape and its potential
capacity. That will be used by the court to determine the fair market value of the
property. After determining the evidence of the parties, the court will now adjudged how
much will be the market value of the property.
FMV = Just Compensation

There are cases that the property was not taken entirely,
How are you going to compute?
Imagine, you are the owner the land and a road was built.
Would you depreciate? Or Appreciate.
- It depends on the real value. But most of the time, if it’s a highway, the
remaining portion appreciates.
However, in cases that electric or transmission line was erected. In most cases, the
remaining portion could no longer be used because of the power that is being generated
in the transmission line and you cannot use the land anymore the portion of the land.
Its more of a damage on the part of the land owner.
In that case, how are the court going to compute?
- Unlike when the property was taken as a whole, if the property is taken only a
portion or a part, the formula is
- FMV + Consequential Damages – Consequential Benefits.
- So you are going to deduct from the consequential damages the benefits that
you are going to derive. So if the benefits is less that the damages, then the
probability is aside from the Fair Market Value, you must be added how much
damage you incurred,
-
- What if the benefits is more than the damages.
- For Example, the Land Value is 1 Million, but because the suffers damages,
ginawang damages, but part of than residue was used for subdivision, shops
etc . so the value of the property appreciated. SO let us say that the damage is
500K but the benefit is 1 Million.
- Would the 1 million Fair Market Value be deduced to 500k because the
benefit exceeded the damages for more than 500k?
- ANS: No, even if the benefits exceeded the damages, it cannot offset the fair
market value. The fair market value would always be constant even if the
benefit exceeded the amount damages.
- That’s how you are going to compute if the property is compensated only a part
but not as a whole.

Consequential Damages – consist of injuries directly cause on the residue of the private
property taken by reason of appropriation.
Consequential Benefit – a better remainder as a result of the expropriation such as
fronting a street where it used to be an interior lot.

Expropriation, The determination of just compensation, rule of 67 of the rules of

court is a JUDICIAL FUNCTION, Therefore no law can be passed dictating the court of
how much would be the just compensation for a particular project.
Because the determination if a judicial function. Therefore, for example if a law is
passed saying that the amount of just compensation in case an expropriation is filed in
this particular property shall be 100K per square meter. THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION
OF TRIAL AND JURISPRUDENCE THAT THE DETERMINATION OF JUST
COMPENSATION IS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION.
- The determination of just compensation is clearly a judicial function and no law
or court could tell the price

That’s why several laws had been passed but was annulled by the Supreme Court as
they violate the provision of Article 3 Section 9 of the Constitution. And in fact,

How about the local government code which provides that upon a filing of the complaint,
you have to deposit 15% of the assessed value of the property.
Is it not a usurpation of the judicial function of the court or judge? How about the
law involving the law involving expropriation of national government projects under RA
10752, where upon the filing of expropriation you have to deposit 100% of value of the
property before we could proceed to the trial.
Isnt it a violation of the principle of just compensation should be a judicial function?
ANS – The provision under the Local Government Code as well as the provision under
the RA 10752 On National Government Infrastructure Project requiring the deposit of
15% and 100% respectively is only on the pre payment or provisional deposit for the
purpose of issuance of the writ of possession.
 It is not yet the just compensation stage of the case. That is why the payment of
the provisional deposit is on the first stage of expropriation proceedings where you are
going to question the validity of the exercise. Because once a complaint filed in court,
you could question the validity of the exercise of the expropriation proceedings if no
deposit is made by the expropriating agency. It is not yet the compensation per se. But
only for the purpose of the validity for the exercise. If you are going to exercise the power
of eminent domain according to the Local Government Code and RA 10752, that exercise
must include the deposit of the provisional amount.

Anyway, the deposit of the provisional amount will only be for 2 purposes,
1. As a form of a prepayment
2. As form of damages in case the expropriating agency will not proceed with the
expropriation of the property.
And it is always subject to the final determination of the just compensation of the case,
which will be eventually be decided by the court or the judge.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO DETERMINE JUST COMPENSATION?

A. At the time of the taking of the property?
B. At the time of the filing of the complaint.

EX.
Let us say that you are a owner of a property, and the government took the property in
1980, without filling an expropriation case in court. Only in 2020 did the government
filed and expropriation case. How many years have lapse since the government took the
property. More than 20 years.
On the issue of how much could be the just compensation.
- The court will now check how much is the property. Will the court use the
value of the property in 2000 and not in the year 2020?
If the court use the price of the property in 2020, the price of the land will be very
high already. But if the court use the price in 2000 the value of the property will be very
much cheap compared to 20 years thereafter.
If you are a practitioner in expropriation proceeding, you will always insist that it
should be the valuation in 2020 and not in the year 2000.
Mas Mahal na a year compared before. The amount of an egg before will be an
amount of gold at present. That’s why it is a battle of how you are going to determine it.
Because the rules of court as stated, would pay the value of the property either of the
time of the taking or the filing of the complaint, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

In the case of Castilvee, would the taking in the year 2000 valid in the
constitutional sense?
IF THE ANSWER IS YES, then the court will use the valuation in year 2000. But if
the elements provided in the Castilvee case are not present or anyone of the elements
are not present. Then that taking of the year 2000 will not be considered in the valuation
of the property, instead it would now be considered in the year 2020. Why? Because it
is always presumed that when you file a case, the date of taking coincide with the filing
of the case. It is upon the expropriating agency to prove that there is a prior taking
before the filing of the case in order to lessen the amount of just compensation.

The case provided us with the elements of valid taking.

1. The expropriator must enter a private property
2. The entry must be for more than momentary period. Hindi Basta pumunta ka lang
jan at umalis, it must be more than that, there must be an intention to stay
permanently not momentary.
 3. It must be under a warrant or color of title or right or legal authority. It must be in
accordance of law. Or because the law specifically conferred upon that particular
agency the right to exercise expropriation.
4. The property must be devoted to public use or informally appropriated or
injuriously affected.
5. The utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner or to
deprive him of the beneficial enjoyment of the property.

But if there is no prior taking, if it’s a new land, its not really a problem. If it’s a
local government unit exercising expropriation. From the filing of the case, you just
deposit the 15% then you can already talk the value of the property now. It is under the
RA 10752 involving National Projects, the DPWH, NaPOCOR, or any government agency.
If it’s a new project, you just deposit the 100% zonal value of the property, then after
that, you determine the amount of just compensation using the different factors, like
location, place, shape, sales data, etc.
Ang Problema talaga when the agency has taken the property prior to the filing of
the case.

What is the Trend Now?

If the Property involves highways, like DPWH projects where the tendency that the
land owner will also benefit from the appreciation of the land. In most cases, the
Supreme Court have always considered the time of the taking of the property even if the
filing was made later on to be the value of the property.
EX. The road was built in 2000 and it was only in 2020 that the complaint was
filed. In most cases decided by the Supreme Court, they would use the year 2000 as the
time of taking and the value of the property at that time should be considered in the
determination of just compensation.

CASE:
In the Case of Sangkay, Salodaris, involving national power corporation, or it
involves transmission line. For so many year, the government had been reaping profits,
in this cases of Sangkay and Salodaris and so on. The Supreme Court upheld the
justification to be made at the time of the filing of the complaint and not the time when
the property was taken. Its really in a case to case basis, depending upon on the
circumstances of the case.
But, one thing for sure that whenever there is a determination of the just
compensation, the government will always imposed interest on the amount to be
paid to the land owner and such interest would cover the period when the
landowner should have been paid the amount of just compensation and the year
that took place before its finally paid to the landowner.

And how much is the interest now?

The interest now is at 6% beginning 2013, but below 2013, it will be 12% based on
the BSP Circular. If the taking was made on the 2000 and the filing of the case happen
on 2020, the interest would be 12 % from the year 2000 up to 2013, and then 2013-
2020 at 6% per annum as an interest to be given in addition to the fair market value of
the property.
When is the owner now finally paid?
If there is an order of the court, the owner of the property must be paid upon the
finality of the order of the court. And usually it coincide with the transfer of the title in
favor of the government, because it is only then owner of the property is already deprived
of the ownership of the property by transferring the title to the government.
Then that’s the time that the amount of just compensation plus interest shall be
given to the owner of the property.