DOCTRINE:

CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE – are only awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining
property of the owner suffers from impairment or decrease of value

FACTS:

 Spouses Salvador are registered owners of a parcel of land covered by a TCT in Valenzuela
 Republic represented by DPWH filed a verified complaint for the expropriation of the said parcel
of land as well as the improvements there on for the construction of C-5 Northern Link Road
Project from NLEX to MC Arthur Highway.
 The spouses 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 P161,850.00 and P523,449.22
 RTC issued the corresponding Writ of possession in favor of the Republic. RTC rendered
judgment in favor of the Republic condemning the subject property for the purpose of
implementing the construction of the project.
 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.
 The Republic moved for partial reconsideration on the issue relating to the payment of capital
gains.
 RTC denied the motion for having belatedly filed. The RTC also found no justifiable basis to
reconsider its award of capital gains taxes but a consequence of the expropriation proceedings
 Republic filed the present petition for review on certiorari assailing the RTC’s Decision and
order.

ISSUE: Whether or not the capital gains tax on the transfer of the expropriated property can be
considered as consequential damages that may be awarded.

HELD: NO

 The RTC committed a serious error when it 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
 “just Compensation” is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property sought to be
expropriated. The measure is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. (The compensation, to
be just, must be fair not only to the owner but also to the taker.)
 In order to determine just compensation, the trial court should first ascertain the market value
of the property by considering the cost of acquisition, the current value of like properties, its
actual or potential uses and in particular case of lands, their size, shape, location and tax
declarations thereon. If as result of the appropriation, the remaining lot suffers from an
impairment or decrease in value, consequential damages may be awarded by the trial court,
provided that the consequential benefits which may arise from the expropriation do not exceed
said damages suffered by the owner of the property.
 In this case, the RTC deemed it fair and just for DPWH to pay for the fees. This is an error. It is
settled that the transfer of property through expropriation proceedings is a sale or exchange
within the meaning of the National Internal Revenue Code and profit from the transaction
constitutes capital gain. 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.
 In fact, DPWH is authorized by the BIR as a withholding agent for the expropriation of real
property for infrastructure projects.
 Consequential damages are only awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining
property of the owner suffers from impairment or decrease in value. In this case, no evidence
was submitted to prove any impairment or decrease in value of the subject property as a result
of the expropriation.