June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 172899 : June 13, 2012]
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF ZACARIAS ALICANDO, REPRESENTED BY BERNARDINA ALICANDO, ADMINISTRATOR
G.R. No. 172899 (National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Zacarias Alicando, represented by Bernardina Alicando, Administrator)
RESOLUTION
This petition for review on certiorari assails the September 29, 2005 Decision[1] and May 30, 2006 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 75005 affirming in toto the September 7, 2001 Order[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City, Branch 35 which fixed the amount of just compensation over respondents' property at P280.00 per square meter.
The Factual Antecedents
Petitioner National Power Corporation is a government-owned and controlled corporation created and existing by virtue of Republic Act No. (RA) 6395,[4] as amended by Presidential Decree No. (PD) 938.[5] Its purpose is to undertake the development of hydro-electric generation of power and production of electricity from various sources.[6] On July 3, 1996, in furtherance of its Leyte-Cebu Interconnection Project (LCIP) 230 KV T/L, petitioner sought to expropriate a portion of a parcel of land located at Barangay Dolores, Ormoc City with an area of 14,996 square meters, more or less, specifically designated as Lot No. 7477-B-l and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6092 in the name of respondents Heirs of Zacarias Alicando, by filing a complaint for eminent domain before the RTC of Ormoc City. For the purpose of determining just compensation, the RTC created a Board of Commissioners.
In its position paper, petitioner invoked its charter, particularly Section 3-A(b) of RA 6395, as amended, which substantially provides that properties which will be traversed by transmission lines will only be considered as right-of-way easements, and just compensation for such easements shall not exceed 10% of the market value of the property affected. Petitioner likewise alleged that Resolution No. 3-97[7] of the City Appraisal Committee (CAC) of Ormoc City, which pegged the fair market value of the property at P85.00 per square meter, should be taken into consideration.
On the other hand, respondents claimed that the fair market value of their property is between P250.00 to P300.00 per square meter, based on the value fetched by similar properties which petitioner had previously expropriated for the same project, as evidenced by the deeds of sale covering said properties.
After conducting several meetings and ocular inspections respecting respondents' property, the Board of Commissioners issued Commissioners' Report[8] dated May 20, 1999 recommending (1) the expropriation of a total of 2,072 square meters of the subject property; and (2) the payment of just compensation in favor of respondents in the amount of P300.00 per square meter with 6% interest computed from July 3, 1996 until paid.
The RTC Ruling
Adopting the recommendations extant in the Commissioners' Report, the RTC, in its September 7, 2001 Order, directed petitioner to pay to respondents, by way of just compensation, the amount of P280.00 per square meter for the portion of Lot 7477-B-l covering 2,072 square meters, or an aggregate amount of P580,160.00 plus 6% interest per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid. In arriving at its disposition, the RTC took into account not only the fair market value of the subject property at the time of the taking, but also its nature, topography and character as well as the amount fetched by several parcels of land that petitioner had priorly acquired for the LCIP. It also considered Ordinance No. 62 of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Ormoc City dated August 21, 1997 which reclassified the properties in Barangay Dolores, where respondents' property is situated, as industrial.
The CA Ruling
In its assailed September 29, 2005 Decision, the appellate court affirmed in toto the RTC's September 7, 2001 Order, explaining that the RTC's factual findings and valuation of the subject property were supported by documentary evidence and confirmed by the ocular inspection conducted by the members of the Board of Commissioners. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the CA's Decision was denied in the latter's May 30, 2006 Resolution.
In this petition for review, petitioner maintains that the CA erred in failing to give weight to Resolution No. 3-97 of the CAC of Ormoc City, as well as Section 3-A(b) of RA 6395.
The Court's Ruling
The issues advanced by petitioner are no longer fresh or novel, having been settled in a number of cases[9] where the Court has consistently rejected petitioner's reliance on Section 3-A(b) of RA 6395.[10] In National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation,[11] the Court ruled that the installation of transmission lines on private property constitutes "taking" under the power of eminent domain, considering that these transmission lines are perilous and their traversal or entry over a specific property will impose restrictions on its use and enjoyment. Accordingly, right-of-way easements fall within the purview of the power of eminent domain.[12]
Thus, since respondents will be effectively deprived of their proprietary rights and enjoyment of their property for an indefinite period, the proper amount of just compensation should be computed and awarded to them, which is the market value of the property.
The Court has defined just compensation in the Manubay[13] case as follows:
"Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word 'just' is used to intensify the meaning of the word 'compensation' and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample."[14]
The determination of just compensation in expropriation cases is a function addressed to the discretion of the courts, and may not be usurped by any other branch or official of the government.[15] This judicial function has constitutional raison d'etre, as Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that no private property shall be taken for public use without payment of just compensation.[16]
In arriving at the amount of P280.00 per square meter as the proper just compensation for the expropriated portion of respondents' property, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, refused to give credence to Resolution No. 3-97 of the CAC of Ormoc City fixing the fair market value of the property at P85.00 per square meter and instead, took into consideration the deeds of absolute sale over similarly-situated properties which petitioner had acquired for the LCIP. It also considered the ocular inspection conducted by the members of the Board of Commissioners, which established the nature, character, use, condition and topography of the subject property, as well as its reclassification from agricultural to industrial by virtue of Ordinance No. 62. Clearly, the valuation given by the courts a quo is strongly supported by the evidence on record. The Court, therefore, sees no compelling reason to disturb or set this conclusion aside, being essentially factual in nature.
In sum, to uphold petitioner's contention that it will merely acquire a right-of-way easement over a specific portion of respondents' property and that its liability to respondents is limited to the payment of an easement fee, which is a measly 10% of the property's market value, as provided for in its charter, specifically Section 3-A(b) of RA 6395, would not only interfere with a judicial function but would also render useless the protection guaranteed by our Constitution. On this score, it must be pointed out that Section 3-A(b) of RA 6395 has never been considered as conclusive or binding upon the courts.[17]
Hence, the Court sees no cogent reason to set aside the findings of the appellate and trial courts fixing the amount of P280.00 per square meter as just and reasonable compensation for the expropriated portion of respondents' land.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed September 29, 2005 Decision and May 30, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 1228 dated June 6, 2012; Villarama, Jr., J., Acting Member, in lieu of Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 1229 dated June 6, 2012.)
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 34-43.[2] Id. at pp. 45-46.
[3] Id. at pp. 58-62.
[4] An Act Revising the Charter of the National Power Corporation, effective September 10, 1971.
[5] An Act Further Amending Certain Sections of Republic Act Numbered Sixty-Three Hundred Ninety-Five entitled, "An Act Revising the Charter of the National Power Corporation," as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 380. 395 and 758. Effective May 27, 1976.
[6] Rollo, p. 13.
[7] Id. at p. 47.
[8] Id. at pp. 48-52.
[9] National Power Corporation v. Tuazon, et. al., G.R. No. 193023, June 22, 2011; National Power Corporation v. Villamor, G.R. No. 160080, June 19, 2009, 590 SCRA 11, 21; National Power Corporation v. Tiangco, G.R. No. 170846, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 674; National Power Corporation v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 170945, September 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 333; Didipio Earth-Savers' Multi-Purpose Association v. Gozun, G.R. No. 157882, March 30, 2006, 485 SCRA 586; National Power Corporation v. Aguirre-Paderanga, G.R. No. 155065, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 481.
[10] SEC. 3A. "In acquiring private property or private property rights through expropriation proceedings where the land or portion thereof will be traversed by the transmission lines, only a right-of-way easement thereon shall be acquired when the principal purpose for which such land is actually devoted will not be impaired, and where the land itself or portion thereof will be needed for the projects or works, such land or portion thereof as necessary shall be acquired.
x x x
(b) With respect to the acquired right-of-way easement over the land or portion thereof, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the market value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property, or such market value as determined by the assessor whichever is lower."
[11] G.R. No. 150936, August 18, 2004, 437 SCRA 60.
[12] National Power Corporation v. Villamor, G.R. No. 160080, June 19, 2009, 590 SCRA 11, 21.
[13] Supra at note 11.
[14] Emphasis ours.
[15] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 167809, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 619, citing Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603, April 29, 1987, 149 SCRA 305.
[16] National Power Corporation v. Tuazon, et. al., G.R. No. 193023, June 22, 2011.
[17] National Power Corporation V. Maria Bagui, et. al., G.R. No. 164964, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 401, 410.
