Dear PAO,

In the late 1990s, government engineers and surveyors came to our barangay to mark a portion of our private land for a government infrastructure project involving transformers/electricity. My father was only a farmer and did not resist. He believed that the government would pay him. Soon after, heavy equipment arrived. Posts and wires were installed, and access roads were opened. No clear papers were given to us. Neither is there any negotiation that transpired. Years passed, and we have not received anything. My father has since passed away, still waiting to be paid. We were told that if we insist on compensation, the value will be based on old prices which feels unfair because the land value today is much higher compared to decades ago. If the government delayed payment for so long, what is our remedy?

Roger

Dear Roger,

In expropriation and similar taking-of-property cases for government infrastructure project, the general rule is that just compensation is determined based on the property’s fair market value at the time of actual taking, not at the time the expropriation complaint is filed, unless exceptional circumstances exist. This doctrine has been reiterated in recent case of Baterna et. al. vs. National Transmission Corporation (G.R. No. 276920, January 21, 2026) involving government infrastructure projects, where the Supreme Court, through Honorable Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, emphasized the “date of taking” as the proper reckoning point for valuation, as follows:

“Notably, in Heirs of Dimao v. National Grid Corporation of the Philippines and Heirs of Cipriano v. National Transmission Corporation, the Court ruled that the proper reckoning point for determining just compensation is the date of taking by TRANSCO — specifically when it constructed the transmission lines on the property — and not the date when the expropriation proceedings were instituted.”

Nonetheless, in the foregoing case, the Supreme Court recognized the inequity that arises when the government takes private property but delays payment of just compensation for a considerable period. The high court held that relying solely on the market value of the property at the time of taking may no longer fully compensate the owner. To ensure that the property owner receives the full and fair equivalent of the property taken, the high court directed the application of the present value formula in cases involving substantial delays in payment, to wit:

“Thus, to temper the inequity that inevitably arises when respondent delays payment despite long-standing occupation, the Court deems it proper to apply the “present value formula” to the subject properties’ value at the time of taking. Through this method, petitioners are made whole — not only for the value of the properties occupied but also for the opportunity lost resulting from delayed payment. In so ruling, the Court ensures that while just compensation remains pegged to the date of taking pursuant to Section 4, Rule 67, it nonetheless reflects the full measure of fairness the Constitution demands.”

Thus, in your case, the proper reckoning point to determine just compensation remains the date of taking which is in the late 1990s. However, considering that the government has neither instituted nor completed any expropriation proceedings and has significantly delayed payment of just compensation, it may be reasonable to apply the present value formula to the fair market value of the land as of the date of the taking. This approach ensures that you will still receive the full and fair equivalent of the property appropriated without altering the legally mandated reckoning point.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected].