FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 205428, June 07, 2017
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES SENANDO F. SALVADOR AND JOSEFIMA R. SALVADOR, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
We resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the August 23, 2012 Decision1 and the January 10, 2013 Order2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 270, Valenzuela City, in Civil Case No. 175-V-11 which directed petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic) to pay respondents spouses Senando F. Salvador and Josefina R. Salvador consequential damages equivalent to the value of the capital gains tax and other taxes necessary for the transfer of the expropriated property in the Republic's name.
The Antecedent Facts
Respondents are the registered owners of a parcel of land with a total land area of 229 square meters, located in Kaingin Street, Barangay Parada, Valenzuela City, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. V-77660.3
On November 9, 2011, the Republic, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), filed a verified Complaint4 before the RTC for the expropriation of 83 square meters of said parcel of land (subject property), as well as the improvements thereon, for the construction of the C-5 Northern Link Road Project Phase 2 (Segment 9) from the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) to McArthur Highway.5
On February 10, 2012, respondents received two checks from the DPWH representing 100% of the zonal value of the subject property and the cost of the one-storey semi-concrete residential house erected on the property amounting to P161,850.006 and P523,449.22,7 respectively.8 The RTC thereafter issued the corresponding Writ of Possession in favor of the Republic.9
On the same day, respondents signified in open court that they recognized the purpose for which their property is being expropriated and interposed no objection thereto.10 They also manifested that they have already received the total sum of P685,349.22 from the DPWH and are therefore no longer intending to claim any just compensation.11
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its Decision12 dated August 23, 2012, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the Republic condemning the subject property for the purpose of implementing the construction of the C-5 Northern Link Road Project Phase 2 (Segment 9) from NLEX to McArthur Highway, Valenzuela City.13
The RTC likewise directed the Republic to pay respondents consequential damages equivalent to the value of the capital gains tax and other taxes necessary for the transfer of the subject property in the Republic's name.14
The Republic moved for partial reconsideration,15 specifically on the issue relating to the payment of the capital gains tax, but the RTC denied the motion in its Order16 dated January 10, 2013 for having been belatedly filed. The RTC also found no justifiable basis to reconsider its award of consequential damages in favor of respondents, as the payment of capital gains tax and other transfer taxes is but a consequence of the expropriation proceedings.17
As a result, the Republic filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the RTC's August 23, 2012 Decision and January 10, 2013 Order.
As aptly pointed out by [respondents], they were merely forced by circumstances to be dispossessed of [the] subject property owing to the exercise of the State of its sovereign power to expropriate. The payment of capital gains tax and other transfer taxes is a consequence of the expropriation proceedings. It is in the sense of equity, justness and fairness, and as upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Capitol Subdivision, Inc. vs. Province of Negros Occidental, G.R. No. L-16257, January 31, 1963, that the assailed consequential damages was awarded by the court.31This is clearly an error. It is settled that the transfer of property through expropriation proceedings is a sale or exchange within the meaning of Sections 24(D) and 56(A)(3) of the National Internal Revenue Code, and profit from the transaction constitutes capital gain.32 Since capital gains tax is a tax on passive income, it is the seller, or respondents in this case, who are liable to shoulder the tax.33
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 22-2.5; penned by Presiding judge Evangeline M. Francisco.
2 Id. at 26-27.
3 Records, pp. 16-17.
4 Id. at 1-15.
5 Id. at 2-3.
6 Id. at 68-69.
7 Id. at 56-57.
8Rollo, p. 10.
9 Id.
10 Records, p. 67.
11Rollo, pp. 23-24.
12 Id. at 22-25.
13 Id. at 25.
14 Id.
15 Records, pp. 121-126.
16Rollo, pp. 26-27.
17 Id. at 27.
18 Id. at 16.
19 Id. at 12-13.
20Russel v. Ebasan, 633 Phil. 384, 390-391 (2010). Emphasis supplied.
21Rollo, p. 27. See also records, p. 128.
22 Id.
23 See RULES OF COURT, Rule 37, Section 1, in relation to Rule 41, Section 3.
24Rollo, p. 16.
25Republic v. Court of Appeals, 612 Phil. 965, 977 (2009).
26 Id.
27 Id. at 980-981, citing B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals, 290-A Phil. 371, 374 (1992).
28National Power Corporation v. Dr. Bongbong, 549 Phil. 93, 107 (2007). Emphasis supplied.
29Manansan v. Republic, 530 Phil. 104, 118 (2005).
30Rollo, p. 25.
31 Id. at 26-27. Emphasis supplied.
32 See Gutierrez v. Court of Tax Appeals, 101 Phil. 713, 721-722 (1957).
33Republic v. Soriano, G.R. No. 211666, February 25, 2015, 752 SCRA 71, 87.
34 Id.
35Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 27 at 980-981.