National Power Corporation vs. Ibrahim, 526 SCRA 149, June 29, 2007
National Power Corporation vs. Ibrahim, 526 SCRA 149, June 29, 2007
National Power Corporation vs. Ibrahim, 526 SCRA 149, June 29, 2007
*
G.R. No. 168732. June 29, 2007.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
150
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
151
portion, it is liable to pay not merely an easement fee but rather the
full compensation for land.—In disregarding this procedure and
failing to recognize respondents’ ownership of the sub-terrain
portion, petitioner took a risk and exposed itself to greater
liability with the passage of time. It must be emphasized that the
acquisition of the easement is not without expense. The
underground tunnels impose limitations on respondents’ use of
the property for an indefinite period and deprive them of its
ordinary use. Based upon the foregoing, respondents are clearly
entitled to the payment of just compensation. Notwithstanding
the fact that petitioner only occupies the sub-terrain portion, it is
liable to pay not merely an easement fee but rather the full
compensation for land. This is so because in this case, the nature
of the easement practically deprives the owners of its normal
beneficial use. Respondents, as the owners of the property thus
expropriated, are 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; Words and Phrases; Just compensation
has been understood to be the just and complete equivalent of the
loss and is ordinarily determined by referring to the value of the
land and its character at the time it was taken by the
expropriating authority; There is a “taking” when the owners are
actually deprived or dispossessed of their property, where there is a
practical destruction or a material impairment of the value of their
property, or when they are deprived of the ordinary use thereof.—
Just compensation has been understood to be the just and
complete equivalent of the loss and is ordinarily determined by
referring to the value of the land and its character at the time it
was taken by the expropriating authority. There is a “taking” in
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
152
AZCUNA, J.:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
_______________
153
154
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
_______________
155
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
156
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
_______________
157
_______________
158
claim to this
7
effect was, therefore, purely conjectural and
speculative.
The contention lacks merit.
Generally, in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, the Court does not pass upon questions
of fact. Absent any showing that the trial and appellate
courts
_______________
159
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
_______________
160
_______________
10 Id.
161
“Has it deprived the plaintiffs of the use of their lands when from
the evidence they have already existing residential houses over
said tunnels and it was not shown that the tunnels either
destroyed said houses or disturb[ed] the possession thereof by
plaintiffs? From the evidence, an affirmative answer seems to be
in order. The plaintiffs and [their] co-heirs discovered [these] big
underground tunnels in 1992. This was confirmed by the
defendant on November 13, 1992 by the Acting Assistant Project
Manager, Agus 1 Hydro Electric Project (Exh. “K”). On September
16, 1992, Atty. Omar Maruhom (co-heir) requested the Marawi
City Water District for permit to construct a motorized deep well
over Lot 3 for his residential house (Exh. “Q”). He was refused the
perm it “because the construction of the deep well as (sic) the
parcels of land will cause danger to lives and property.” He was
informed that “beneath your lands are constructed the Napocor
underground tunnel in connection with Agua Hydroelectric plant”
(Exh. “Q-2”). Ther e in fact exists ample evidence that this
construction of the tunnel without the prior consent of plaintiffs
beneath the latter’s property endangered the lives and properties
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
_______________
162
event restoration
13
of possession is neither convenient nor
feasible. This is in accordance with the principle that
persons shall not be
_______________
163
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
14 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 9. See also CIVIL CODE, Art. 435.
15 Republic v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., 136 Phil. 20; 26
SCRA 620 (1969).
16 National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106804,
August 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 195.
164
17
the payment of just compensation. Notwithstanding the
fact that petitioner only occupies the sub-terrain portion, it
is liable to pay not merely an easement fee but rather the
full compensation for land. This is so because in this case,
the nature of the easement practically deprives the owners
of its normal beneficial use. Respondents, as the owners of
the property thus expropriated, are entitled to a just
compensation which should be neither more nor less,
whenever it is possible to make the 18
assessment, than the
money equivalent of said property.
The entitlement of respondents to just compensation
having been settled, the issue now is on the manner of
computing the same. In this regard, petitioner claims that
the basis for the computation of the just compensation
should be the value of the property at the time it was taken
in 1978. Petitioner also impugns the reliance made by the
CA upon National Power Corporation19
v. Court of Appeals
and Macapanton Mangondato as the basis for computing
the amount of just compensation in this action. The CA
found that “the award of damages is not excessive because
the P1000 per square meter as the fair market value was
sustained in a case involving a lot adjoining the property in
question which case involved an expropriation by
[petitioner] of portion of Lot 1 of the subdivision plan (LRC)
PSD 116159 which is adjacent to Lots 2 and 3 of the same
subdivision 20plan which is the subject of the instant
controversy.”
Just compensation has been understood 21
to be the just
and complete equivalent of the loss and is ordinarily
determined by referring to the value of the land and its
character at the
_______________
165
22
time it was taken by the expropriating authority. There is
a “taking” in this sense when the owners are actually
deprived or dispossessed of their property, where there is a
practical destruction or a material impairment of the value
of their property, or when they are deprived of the ordinary
use thereof. There is a “taking” in this context when the
expropriator enters private property not only for a
momentary period but for more permanent duration, for
the purpose of devoting the property to a public use in such
a manner as to oust the owner 23
and deprive him of all
beneficial enjoyment thereof. Moreover, “taking” of the
property for purposes of eminent domain entails that the
entry into the property
24
must be under warrant or color of
legal authority.
Under the factual backdrop of this case, the last element
of taking mentioned, i.e., that the entry into the property is
under warrant or color of legal authority, is patently
lacking. Petitioner justified its nonpayment of the
indemnity due respondents upon its mistaken belief that
the property formed part of the public dominion.
This situation is on all fours with that in the
Mangondato case. NAPOCOR in that case took the
property of therein respondents in 1979, using it to build
its Aqua I Hydroelectric Plant Project, without paying any
compensation, allegedly under the mistaken belief that it
was public land. It was only in 1990, after more than a
decade of beneficial use, that NAPOCOR recognized
therein respondents’ ownership and negotiated for the
voluntary purchase of the property.
In Mangondato, this Court held:
_______________
166
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
167
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
But there is yet another cogent reason why this petition should
be denied and why the respondent Court should be sustained. An
examination of the undisputed factual environment would show
that the “taking” was not really made in 1978.
This Court has defined the elements of “taking” as the main
ingredient in the exercise of power of eminent domain, in the
follow-ing words:
“A number of circumstances must be present in “taking” of
property for purposes of eminent domain: (1) the expropriator
must enter a private property; (2) the entrance into private
property must be for more than a momentary period; (3) the entry
into the property should be under warrant or color of legal
authority; (4) the property must be devoted to a public use or
otherwise informally appropriated
168
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
_______________
170
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
_______________
171
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
xxx
“Commissioner Doromal’s report, recommending P300.00 per
square meter, differs from the 2 commissioners only because his
report was based on the valuation as of 1978 by the City
Appraisal Committee as clarified by the latter’s chairman in
response to NAPOCOR’s general counsel’s query.”
In sum, we agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner has
failed to show why it should be granted an exemption from the
general rule in determining just compensation provided under
Section 4 of Rule 67. On the contrary, private respondent has
convinced us that, indeed,
27
such general rule should in fact be
observed in this case.”
_______________
172
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/24
2/22/22, 8:38 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 526
——o0o——
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f2170f73eea506eff000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/24