Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    Eminent Domain

    Uploaded by

    Jen Dee
    The NPC argued it should only pay 10% of the land value as an easement fee for installing power lines, not the full value, as it acquired a right-of-way easement. However, the court determined that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function, not for NPC to decide. While NPC acquired an easement, the acquisition was not gratis as the power lines would deprive the owner of normal use of the property for an indefinite period. Just compensation must be the monetary equivalent of the land value at the time of taking, considering the condition, improvements, and capabilities of the property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Eminent Domain

    Uploaded by

    Jen Dee
    42 views1 page
    The NPC argued it should only pay 10% of the land value as an easement fee for installing power lines, not the full value, as it acquired a right-of-way easement. However, the court determined that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function, not for NPC to decide. While NPC acquired an easement, the acquisition was not gratis as the power lines would deprive the owner of normal use of the property for an indefinite period. Just compensation must be the monetary equivalent of the land value at the time of taking, considering the condition, improvements, and capabilities of the property.

    Original Description:

    Just Compensation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The NPC argued it should only pay 10% of the land value as an easement fee for installing power lines, not the full value, as it acquired a right-of-way easement. However, the court determined that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function, not for NPC to decide. While NPC acquired an easement, the acquisition was not gratis as the power lines would deprive the owner of normal use of the property for an indefinite period. Just compensation must be the monetary equivalent of the land value at the time of taking, considering the condition, improvements, and capabilities of the property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views1 page

    Eminent Domain

    Uploaded by

    Jen Dee
    The NPC argued it should only pay 10% of the land value as an easement fee for installing power lines, not the full value, as it acquired a right-of-way easement. However, the court determined that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function, not for NPC to decide. While NPC acquired an easement, the acquisition was not gratis as the power lines would deprive the owner of normal use of the property for an indefinite period. Just compensation must be the monetary equivalent of the land value at the time of taking, considering the condition, improvements, and capabilities of the property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Power of Eminent Domain - Expropriation - Just Compensation

    In an expropriation case, NPC insisted that if any amount should be paid to the landowners, it should only
    be an easement fee of 10% the value of the property, not the full value, since it acquired only a simple right-
    of-way easement for the passage of its overhead transmission lines. It pointed out that its charter
    authorizes the acquisition only of a right-of-way easement for its transmission lines and the payment of an
    easement fee. Is the contention correct?

    No. The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. No statute, decree, or executive order can
    mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court’s findings.

    In National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, G.R. No. 150936, August
    18, 2004, 437 SCRA 60, it was said that granting arguendo that what petitioner acquired over respondent’s
    property was purely an easement of a right of way, still, the Court cannot sustain its view that it should pay
    only an easement fee, and not the full value of the property. The acquisition of such an easement falls within
    the purview of the power of eminent domain. (Republic v. PLDT, 136 Phil. 20 (1969)).

    True, an easement of a right of way transmits no rights except the easement itself, and owner retains full
    ownership of the property. The acquisition of such easement is, nevertheless, not gratis. Considering the
    nature and the effect of the installation of power lines, the limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite
    period would deprive owner of normal use of the property. For this reason, the latter is entitled to payment of
    just compensation which must be neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent of the land. (NPC v. Dr.
    Antero Bongbong, et al., G.R. No. 164079, April 3, 2007).

    Just compensation is the fair value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to
    sell, fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. This rule holds true when the property is taken
    before the filing of an expropriation suit, and even if it is the property owner who brings the action for
    compensation. The nature and character of the land at the time of its taking is the principal criterion for
    determining how much just compensation should be given to the landowner. In determining just
    compensation, all the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and
    capabilities, should be considered. (EPZA v. Dulay, G.R. No. 59603, April 29, 1987, 149 SCRA 305; NPC v. Dr.
    Antero Bongbong, et al., G.R. No. 164079, April 3, 2007).

    You might also like