National Power Corp v. CA (Exproriation) Docx

National Power Corporation v.
Court of Appeals
436 SCRA
Re: Exproriation
Facts:
Plaintiff National Power Corporation, a government owned 1 and
controlled entity is invested with the power of eminent domain for the
purpose of pursuing its objectives, which among others is the construction,
operation, and maintenance of electric transmission lines for distribution
throughout the Philippines. For the construction of transmission lines,
plaintiff's lines have to pass the lands belonging to defendants Matias Cruz,
Heirs of Natalia Paule and spouses Misericordia Gutierrez and Ricardo Malit.
Plaintiff conducted negotiations for right of way easements but failed to do
so; the same with eminent domain proceedings. Plaintiff then filed a
complaint and deposited the amount of P973.00 with the Provincial Treasurer
of Pampanga and tendered to cover provisional value of the lands of
defendants Malit and Guitirrez which eventually led to the possession of said
land by the Corporation.
The only controversy herein is the reasonableness and adequacy of the
disturbance or compensation fee of the expropriated properties. Through the
court, an ocular inspection was granted for the determination of the proper
value, one commissioner for the defendant, one for the plaintiff and for the
Court. The commissioner of the defendant recommended the amount of
P10.00/sq.m (or the total amount of P7, 600.00 while P5.00 from that of the
Court. The plaintiff corporation urged the Court that the assessment as
recommended by their commissioner be the one adopted. Defendant
spouses, however, dissented and objected to the price recommended by
both the representative of the court and of the plaintiff corporation.
The lower court rendered the decision favoring defendants. Plaintiff
Corporation then filed for a Motion for Reconsideration which amended the
decision reducing the said amount to P5.00/sq.m. Dissatisfied, plaintiff filed
an appeal with the Court of Appeals respondent court however sustained the
said decision.
Issue:
WHETHER PETITIONER SHOULD BE MADE TO PAY SIMPLE EASEMENT
FEE OR FULL COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND TRAVERSED BY ITS
TRANSMISSION LINES
1 Commonwealth Act No. 120
Held:
The resolution of this case hinges on the determination of whether the
acquisition of a mere right-of-way is an exercise of the power of eminent
domain contemplated by law.1wphi1
The trial court's observation shared by the appellate court show that ". . .
While it is true that plaintiff are only after a right-of-way easement, it
nevertheless perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as
manifested by the imposition by the plaintiff upon defendants that below
said transmission lines no plant higher than three (3) meters is allowed.
Furthermore, because of the high-tension current conveyed through said
transmission lines, danger to life and limbs that may be caused beneath said
wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to cap it all plaintiff only pays the
fee to defendants once, while the latter shall continually pay the taxes due
on said affected portion of their property."
The foregoing facts considered the acquisition of the right-of-way
easement falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain. Such
conclusion finds support in similar cases of easement of right-of-way where
the Supreme Court sustained the award of just compensation for private
property condemned for public use The Supreme Court thus held that:
Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in the
taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the expropriated
property; but no cogent reason appears why said power may not be
availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned
property, without loss of title and possession. It is unquestionable that
real property may, through expropriation, be subjected to an easement
of right-of-way.2
The easement of right-of-way is definitely a taking under the power of
eminent domain. Considering the nature and effect of the installation of
transmission lines, the limitation imposed against the use of the land for an
indefinite period deprives private respondents of its ordinary use.
For these reasons, the owner of the property expropriated is entitled to
a just compensation, which should be neither more nor less, whenever it is
possible to make the assessment, than the money equivalent of said
property. Just compensation has always been understood to be the just and
2 Republic of the Philippines v. PLDT
complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated
has to suffer by reason of the expropriation3
No matter how laudable NPC's purpose is, for which expropriation was
sought, it is just and equitable that they be compensated the fair and full
equivalent for the loss sustained, which is the measure of the indemnity, not
whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating entity.4
3 Province of Tayabas vs. Perez, 66 Phil. 467 [1938]; Assoc. of Small Land Owners of
the Phils., Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742; Acuna vs.
Arroyo, G.R. No. 79310; Pabrico vs. Juico, G.R. No. 79744; Manaay v. Juico, G.R. No.
79777,14 July 1989, 175 SCRA 343 [1989]). The price or value of the land and its
character at the time it was taken by the Government are the criteria for
determining just compensation (National Power Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA
665, [1984]
4EPZA v. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987); Mun. of Daet v. Court of Appeals, 93 SCRA
503 (1979)

National Power Corp v. CA (Exproriation) Docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Power Corp v. CA (Exproriation) Docx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Power Corp v. CA (Exproriation) Docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Power Corporation v.

You might also like