THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 211666. February 25, 2015.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT

OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS , petitioner, vs. ARLENE R.
SORIANO, respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the Decision 1 dated November 15, 2013 and Order 2 dated March 10, 2014 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Valenzuela City, Branch 270, in Civil Case No. 140-V-
10.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On October 20, 2010, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), filed a Complaint 3 for
expropriation against respondent Arlene R. Soriano, the registered owner of a parcel of
land consisting of an area of 200 square meters, situated at Gen. T. De Leon,
Valenzuela City, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. V-13790. 4 In its
Complaint, petitioner averred that pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 8974, otherwise
known as "An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-Of-Way, Site or Location for
National Government Infrastructure Projects and for other Purposes," the property
sought to be expropriated shall be used in implementing the construction of the North
Luzon Expressway (NLEX) — Harbor Link Project (Segment 9) from NLEX to
MacArthur Highway, Valenzuela City. 5
Petitioner duly deposited to the Acting Branch Clerk of Court the amount of
P420,000.00 representing 100% of the zonal value of the subject property.
Consequently, in an Order 6 dated May 27, 2011, the RTC ordered the issuance of a
Writ of Possession and a Writ of Expropriation for failure of respondent, or any of her
representatives, to appear despite notice during the hearing called for the purpose.
In another Order 7 dated June 21, 2011, the RTC appointed the following
members of the Board of Commissioners for the determination of just compensation: (1)
Ms. Eunice O. Josue, Officer-in-Charge, RTC, Branch 270, Valenzuela City; (2) Atty.
Cecilynne R. Andrade, Acting Valenzuela City Assessor, City Assessor's Office,
Valenzuela City; and (3) Engr. Restituto Bautista, of Brgy. Bisig, Valenzuela City.
However, the trial court subsequently revoked the appointment of the Board for their
failure to submit a report as to the fair market value of the property to assist the court in
the determination of just compensation and directed the parties to submit their
respective position papers. 8 Thereafter, the case was set for hearing giving the parties
the opportunity to present and identify all evidence in support of their arguments
therein.
According to the RTC, the records of the case reveal that petitioner adduced
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 evidence to show that the total amount deposited is just, fair, and equitable. Specifically,
in its Position Paper, petitioner alleged that pursuant to a Certification issued by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Revenue Region No. 5, the zonal value of the
subject property in the amount of P2,100.00 per square meter is reasonable, fair, and
just to compensate the defendant for the taking of her property in the total area of 200
square meters. 9 In fact, Tax Declaration No. C-018-07994, dated November 13, 2009
submitted by petitioner, shows that the value of the subject property is at a lower rate of
P400.00 per square meter. Moreover, as testified to by Associate Solicitor III Julie P.
Mercurio, and as affirmed by the photographs submitted, the subject property is poorly
maintained, covered by shrubs and weeds, and not concretely-paved. It is located far
from commercial or industrial developments in an area without a proper drainage
system, can only be accessed through a narrow dirt road, and is surrounded by
adjacent dwellings of sub-standard materials.
Accordingly, the RTC considered respondent to have waived her right to adduce
evidence and to object to the evidence submitted by petitioner for her continued
absence despite being given several notices to do so.
On November 15, 2013, the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, with the foregoing determination of just compensation,
judgment is hereby rendered:
1) Declaring plaintiff to have lawful right to acquire possession of and title
to 200 square meters of defendant Arlene R. Soriano's parcel of
land covered by TCT V-13790 necessary for the construction of the
NLEX — Harbor Link Project (Segment 9) from NLEX to MacArthur
Highway Valenzuela City; DEICHc

2) Condemning portion to the extent of 200 square meters of the above-

described parcel of land including improvements thereon, if there
be any, free from all liens and encumbrances;
3) Ordering the plaintiff to pay defendant Arlene R. Soriano Php2,100.00
per square meter or the sum of Four Hundred Twenty Thousand
Pesos (Php420,000.00) for the 200 square meters as fair,
equitable, and just compensation with legal interest at 12% per
annum from the taking of the possession of the property, subject to
the payment of all unpaid real property taxes and other relevant
taxes, if there be any;
4) Plaintiff is likewise ordered to pay the defendant consequential
damages which shall include the value of the transfer tax necessary
for the transfer of the subject property from the name of the
defendant to that of the plaintiff;
5) The Office of the Register of Deeds of Valenzuela City, Metro Manila is
directed to annotate this Decision in Transfer Certificate of Title No.
V-13790 registered under the name of Arlene R. Soriano.
Let a certified true copy of this decision be recorded in the Registry of
Deeds of Valenzuela City.
Records of this case show that the Land Bank Manager's Check Nos.
0000016913 dated January 21, 2011 in the amount of Php400,000.00 and
0000017263 dated April 28, 2011 in the amount of Php20,000.00 issued by the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) are already stale. Thus,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 the said Office is hereby directed to issue another Manager's Check in the total
amount Php420,000.00 under the name of the Office of the Clerk of Court,
Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City earmarked for the instant case. 10
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration maintaining that pursuant to Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, which took effect on July 1,
2013, the interest rate imposed by the RTC on just compensation should be lowered to
6% for the instant case falls under a loan or forbearance of money. 11 In its Order 12
dated March 10, 2014, the RTC reduced the interest rate to 6% per annum not on the
basis of the aforementioned Circular, but on Article 2209 of the Civil Code, viz.:
However, the case of National Power Corporation v. Honorable Zain B.
Angas is instructive.
In the aforementioned case law, which is similar to the instant case, the
Supreme Court had the occasion to rule that it is well-settled that the
aforequoted provision of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular applies only to a
loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits. However, the term "judgments"
as used in Section 1 of the Usury Law and the previous Central Bank Circular
No. 416, should be interpreted to mean only judgments involving loan or
forbearance of money, goods or credits, following the principle of ejusdem
generis. And applying said rule on statutory construction, the general term
"judgments" can refer only to judgments in cases involving loans or forbearance
of any money, goods, or credits. Thus, the High Court held that, Art. 2209 of the
Civil Code, and not the Central Bank Circular, is the law applicable.
Art. 2209 of the Civil Code reads:
"If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of
money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for
damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the
payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of
stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum."
Further in that case, the Supreme Court explained that the transaction
involved is clearly not a loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits but
expropriation of certain parcels of land for a public purpose, the payment of
which is without stipulation regarding interest, and the interest adjudged by the
trial court is in the nature of indemnity for damages. The legal interest required
to be paid on the amount of just compensation for the properties expropriated is
manifestly in the form of indemnity for damages for the delay in the payment
thereof. It ultimately held that Art. 2209 of the Civil Code shall apply. 13
On May 12, 2014, petitioner filed the instant petition invoking the following
arguments:
I.
RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE LEGAL INTEREST OF 6%
PER ANNUM ON THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY AS THERE WAS NO DELAY ON THE PART OF
PETITIONER.
II.
BASED ON THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997
AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, IT IS RESPONDENT'S
OBLIGATION TO PAY THE TRANSFER TAXES. cDCEIA

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 Petitioner maintains that 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 computed from the time the property is taken up to the
time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. 14 Thus, legal
interest applies only when the property was taken prior to the deposit of payment with
the court and only to the extent that there is delay in payment. In the instant case,
petitioner posits that since it was able to deposit with the court the amount representing
the zonal value of the property before its taking, it cannot be said to be in delay, and
thus, there can be no interest due on the payment of just compensation. 15 Moreover,
petitioner alleges that since the entire subject property was expropriated and not merely
a portion thereof, it did not suffer an impairment or decrease in value, rendering the
award of consequential damages nugatory. Furthermore, petitioner claims that contrary
to the RTC's instruction, transfer taxes, in the nature of Capital Gains Tax and
Documentary Stamp Tax, necessary for the transfer of the subject property from the
name of the respondent to that of the petitioner are liabilities of respondent and not
petitioner.
The petition is partly meritorious.
At the outset, it must be noted that the RTC's reliance on National Power
Corporation v. Angas is misplaced for the same has already been overturned by our
more recent ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals, 16 wherein we held that the payment
of just compensation for the expropriated property amounts to an effective forbearance
on the part of the State, to wit:
Aside from this ruling, Republic notably overturned the Court's
previous ruling in National Power Corporation v. Angas which held that
just compensation due for expropriated properties is not a loan or
forbearance of money but indemnity for damages for the delay in
payment; since the interest involved is in the nature of damages rather
than earnings from loans, then Art. 2209 of the Civil Code, which fixes
legal interest at 6%, shall apply.
In Republic, the Court recognized that the just compensation due to
the landowners for their expropriated property amounted to an effective
forbearance on the part of the State. Applying the Eastern Shipping Lines
ruling, the Court fixed the applicable interest rate at 12% per annum, computed
from the time the property was taken until the full amount of just compensation
was paid, in order to eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and inflation
of the value of the currency over time. In the Court's own words:
The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was correct in
imposing interest[s] on the zonal value of the property to be
computed from the time petitioner instituted condemnation
proceedings and "took" the property in September 1969. This
allowance of interest on the amount found to be the value of the
property as of the time of the taking computed, being an effective
forbearance, at 12% per annum should help eliminate the issue of
the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value of the currency
over time.TCADEc

We subsequently upheld Republic's 12% per annum interest rate on the

unpaid expropriation compensation in the following cases: Reyes v. National
Housing Authority, Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, Republic v. Court
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 of Appeals, Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial, Philippine Ports Authority
v. Rosales-Bondoc, and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority. 17
Effectively, therefore, the debt incurred by the government on account of the
taking of the property subject of an expropriation constitutes a forbearance 18 which
runs contrary to the trial court's opinion that the same is in the nature of indemnity for
damages calling for the application of Article 2209 of the Civil Code. Nevertheless, in
line with the recent circular of the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
(BSP-MB) No. 799, Series of 2013, effective July 1, 2013, the prevailing rate of interest
for loans or forbearance of money is six percent (6%) per annum, in the absence of an
express contract as to such rate of interest.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, We find that the imposition of interest in this case
is unwarranted in view of the fact that as evidenced by the acknowledgment receipt 19
signed by the Branch Clerk of Court, petitioner was able to deposit with the trial court
the amount representing the zonal value of the property before its taking. As often ruled
by this Court, the award of interest is imposed in the nature of damages for delay in
payment which, in effect, makes the obligation on the part of the government one of
forbearance to ensure prompt payment of the value of the land and limit the opportunity
loss of the owner. 20 However, when there is no delay in the payment of just
compensation, We have not hesitated in deleting the imposition of interest thereon for
the same is justified only in cases where delay has been sufficiently established. 21
The records of this case reveal that petitioner did not delay in its payment of just
compensation as it had deposited the pertinent amount in full due to respondent on
January 24, 2011, or four (4) months before the taking thereof, which was when the
RTC ordered the issuance of a Writ of Possession and a Writ of Expropriation on May
27, 2011. The amount deposited was deemed by the trial court to be just, fair, and
equitable, taking into account the well-established factors in assessing the value of
land, such as its size, condition, location, tax declaration, and zonal valuation as
determined by the BIR. Considering, therefore, the prompt payment by the petitioner of
the full amount of just compensation as determined by the RTC, We find that the
imposition of interest thereon is unjustified and should be deleted.
Similarly, the award of consequential damages should likewise be deleted in view
of the fact that the entire area of the subject property is being expropriated, and not
merely a portion thereof, wherein such remaining portion suffers an impairment or
decrease in value, as enunciated in Republic of the Philippines v. Bank of the Philippine
Islands, 22 thus:
. . . The general rule is that the just compensation to which the owner of
the condemned property is entitled to is the market value. Market value is that
sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner
willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be paid by the
buyer and received by the seller. The general rule, however, is modified
where only a part of a certain property is expropriated. In such a case, the
owner is not restricted to compensation for the portion actually taken, he
is also entitled to recover the consequential damage, if any, to the
remaining part of the property.
xxx xxx xxx
No actual taking of the building is necessary to grant consequential
damages. Consequential damages are awarded if as a result of the
expropriation, the remaining property of the owner suffers from an
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 impairment or decrease in value. The rules on expropriation clearly provide a
legal basis for the award of consequential damages. Section 6 of Rule 67 of the
Rules of Court provides:
. . . The commissioners shall assess the consequential
damages to the property not taken and deduct from such
consequential damages the consequential benefits to be derived
by the owner from the public use or public purpose of the property
taken, the operation of its franchise by the corporation or the
carrying on of the business of the corporation or person taking the
property. But in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed
exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the owner be
deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.
In B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals, we held that:
To determine just compensation, the trial court should first
ascertain the market value of the property, to which should be
added the consequential damages after deducting therefrom the
consequential benefits which may arise from the expropriation. If
the consequential benefits exceed the consequential damages,
these items should be disregarded altogether as the basic value
of the property should be paid in every case. 23
Considering that the subject property is being expropriated in its entirety, there is
no remaining portion which may suffer an impairment or decrease in value as a result of
the expropriation. Hence, the award of consequential damages is improper.
Anent petitioner's contention that it cannot be made to pay the value of the
transfer taxes in the nature of capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax, which are
necessary for the transfer of the subject property from the name of the respondent to
that of the petitioner, the same is partly meritorious.
With respect to the capital gains tax, We find merit in petitioner's posture that
pursuant to Sections 24 (D) and 56 (A) (3) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC), capital gains tax due on the sale of real property is a liability for the account of
the seller, to wit:
Section 24. Income Tax Rates —
xxx xxx xxx
(D) Capital Gains from Sale of Real Property. —
(1) In General. — The provisions of Section 39(B)
notwithstanding, a final tax of six percent (6%) based on the gross
selling price or current fair market value as determined in
accordance with Section 6(E) of this Code, whichever is higher, is
hereby imposed upon capital gains presumed to have been
realized from the sale, exchange, or other disposition of real
property located in the Philippines, classified as capital assets,
including pacto de retro sales and other forms of conditional sales,
by individuals, including estates and trusts: Provided, That the tax
liability, if any, on gains from sales or other disposition of real
property to the government or any of its political subdivisions or
agencies or to government-owned or controlled corporations shall
be determined either under Section 24(A) or under this
Subsection, at the option of the taxpayer.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 xxx xxx xxx
Section 56. Payment and Assessment of Income Tax for Individuals and
Corporations. —
(A) Payment of Tax —
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Payment of Capital Gains Tax. — The total amount of
tax imposed and prescribed under Section 24(c), 24(D), 27(E)(2),
28(A)(8)(c) and 28(B)(5)(c) shall be paid on the date the return
prescribed therefor is filed by the person liable thereto: Provided,
That if the seller submits proof of his intention to avail himself of
the benefit of exemption of capital gains under existing special
laws, no such payments shall be required: Provided, further, That
in case of failure to qualify for exemption under such special laws
and implementing rules and regulations, the tax due on the gains
realized from the original transaction shall immediately become
due and payable, subject to the penalties prescribed under
applicable provisions of this Code: Provided, finally, That if the
seller, having paid the tax, submits such proof of intent within six
(6) months from the registration of the document transferring the
real property, he shall be entitled to a refund of such tax upon
verification of his compliance with the requirements for such
exemption. IcHTAa

Thus, it has been held that since capital gains is a tax on passive income, it is the
seller, not the buyer, who generally would shoulder the tax. 24 Accordingly, the BIR, in
its BIR Ruling No. 476-2013, dated December 18, 2013, constituted the DPWH as a
withholding agent to withhold the six percent (6%) final withholding tax in the
expropriation of real property for infrastructure projects. As far as the government is
concerned, therefore, the capital gains tax remains a liability of the seller since it is a tax
on the seller's gain from the sale of the real estate. 25
As to the documentary stamp tax, however, this Court finds inconsistent
petitioner's denial of liability to the same. Petitioner cites Section 196 of the 1997 NIRC
as its basis in saying that the documentary stamp tax is the liability of the seller, viz.:
SECTION 196. Stamp Tax on Deeds of Sale and Conveyances of Real
Property. — On all conveyances, deeds, instruments, or writings, other than
grants, patents or original certificates of adjudication issued by the
Government, whereby any land, tenement or other realty sold shall be granted,
assigned, transferred or otherwise conveyed to the purchaser, or purchasers,
or to any other person or persons designated by such purchaser or purchasers,
there shall be collected a documentary stamp tax, at the rates herein below
prescribed, based on the consideration contracted to be paid for such realty or
on its fair market value determined in accordance with Section 6(E) of this
Code, whichever is higher: Provided, That when one of the contracting parties
is the Government, the tax herein imposed shall be based on the actual
consideration:
(a) When the consideration, or value received or
contracted to be paid for such realty, after making proper
allowance of any encumbrance, does not exceed One thousand
pesos (P1,000), Fifteen pesos (P15.00).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 (b) For each additional One thousand pesos (P1,000), or
fractional part thereof in excess of One thousand pesos (P1,000)
of such consideration or value, Fifteen pesos (P15.00).
When it appears that the amount of the documentary stamp tax payable
hereunder has been reduced by an incorrect statement of the consideration in
any conveyance, deed, instrument or writing subject to such tax the
Commissioner, provincial or city Treasurer, or other revenue officer shall, from
the assessment rolls or other reliable source of information, assess the property
of its true market value and collect the proper tax thereon. cDIHES

Yet, a perusal of the provision cited above does not explicitly impute the
obligation to pay the documentary stamp tax on the seller. In fact, according to the BIR,
all the parties to a transaction are primarily liable for the documentary stamp tax, as
provided by Section 2 of BIR Revenue Regulations No. 9-2000, which reads: 26
SEC. 2. Nature of the Documentary Stamp Tax and Persons Liable for
the Tax. —
(a) In General. — The documentary stamp taxes under
Title VII of the Code is a tax on certain transactions. It is
imposed against "the person making, signing, issuing,
accepting, or transferring" the document or facility
evidencing the aforesaid transactions. Thus, in general, it
may be imposed on the transaction itself or upon the
document underlying such act. Any of the parties thereto
shall be liable for the full amount of the tax due: Provided,
however, that as between themselves, the said parties may agree
on who shall be liable or how they may share on the cost of the
tax.
(b) Exception. — Whenever one of the parties to the
taxable transaction is exempt from the tax imposed under Title VII
of the Code, the other party thereto who is not exempt shall be
the one directly liable for the tax. 27
As a general rule, therefore, any of the parties to a transaction shall be liable for
the full amount of the documentary stamp tax due, unless they agree among
themselves on who shall be liable for the same.
In this case, there is no agreement as to the party liable for the documentary
stamp tax due on the sale of the land to be expropriated. But while petitioner rejects any
liability for the same, this Court must take note of petitioner's Citizen's Charter, 28 which
functions as a guide for the procedure to be taken by the DPWH in acquiring real
property through expropriation under RA 8974. The Citizen's Charter, issued by
petitioner DPWH itself on December 4, 2013, explicitly provides that the
documentary stamp tax, transfer tax, and registration fee due on the transfer of
the title of land in the name of the Republic shall be shouldered by the
implementing agency of the DPWH, while the capital gains tax shall be paid by
the affected property owner. 29 Thus, while there is no specific agreement between
petitioner and respondent, petitioner's issuance of the Citizen's Charter serves as its
notice to the public as to the procedure it shall generally take in cases of expropriation
under RA 8974. Accordingly, it will be rather unjust for this Court to blindly accede to
petitioner's vague rejection of liability in the face of its issuance of the Citizen's Charter,
which contains a clear and unequivocal assumption of accountability for the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 documentary stamp tax. Had petitioner provided this Court with more convincing basis,
apart from a mere citation of an indefinite provision of the 1997 NIRC, showing that it
should be respondent-seller who shall be liable for the documentary stamp tax due on
the sale of the subject property, its rejection of the payment of the same could have
been sustained.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The Decision and Order, dated November 15, 2013 and March 10, 2014,
respectively, of the Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City, Branch 270, in Civil Case No.
140-V-10 are hereby MODIFIED, in that the imposition of interest on the payment of just
compensation as well as the award of consequential damages are deleted. In addition,
respondent Arlene R. Soriano is ORDERED to pay for the capital gains tax due on the
transfer of the expropriated property, while the documentary stamp tax, transfer tax, and
registration fee shall be for the account of petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Villarama, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Leonen, * J., see separate concurring opinion.

Footnotes
* Designated Acting Member, in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated
September 8, 2014.

1. Penned by Judge Evangeline M. Francisco; Annex "A" to Petition,rollo, pp. 27-32.

2. Annex "B" to Petition, id. at 33-34.

3. Annex "D" to Petition, id. at 38-49.

4. Annex "E" to Petition, id. at 50.

5. Id. at 27.

6. Annex "G" to Petition, id. at 53.

7. Annex "H" to Petition, id. at 54.

8. Annex "I" to Petition, id. at 55.

9. Id. at 28.

10. Rollo, pp. 30-32.

11. Id. at 33.

12. Supra note 2.

13. Rollo, pp. 33-34. (Citations omitted)

14. Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al., 433 Phil. 106, 122 (2002).

15. Rollo, p. 16.

16. Supra note 13.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 17. Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 647 Phil.
251, 274-275 (2010). (Emphasis supplied)

18. Sy v. Local Government of Quezon City, G.R. No. 202690, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 621,
631.

19. Rollo, p. 67.

20. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182431, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA
148, 153, citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,515 Phil. 467, 484 (2006) citing
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, 464 Phil. 83, 100 (2004), further citing Reyes
v. National Housing Authority, 443 Phil. 603 (2003).

21. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Escandor, et al., 647 Phil. 20, 30 (2010), citing Land Bank
of the Philippines v. Celada, 515 Phil. 467, 484 (2006); 479 SCRA 495, 512; see also
Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Land Bank of
the Philippines, 622 Phil. 215, 238 (2009).
22. G.R. No. 203039, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 650.

23. Republic v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, supra,at 664-666. (Citations omitted; emphasis
ours)

24. Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
173425, September 4, 2012, 679 SCRA 566, 586, citing Fort Bonifacio Development
Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 602 Phil. 100, 123 (2009).

25. Chua v. Court of Appeals, 449 Phil. 25, 50 (2003).

26. Philacor Credit Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 169899,
February 6, 2013, 690 SCRA 28, 38, citing BIR Revenue Regulations No. 9-2000,
November 22, 2000.

27. Emphasis ours.

28. http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/pdf/DPWH%20Citizen's%20Charter.pdf, (last accessed February
12, 2015).

29. DPWH Citizen's Charter, id., p. 22.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com