National Power Corporation v. Apolonio V. Marasigan Et Al G.R. No. 220367 November 20 2017

National Power Corporation v. Apolonio V. Marasigan, et al, G.R. No.
220367,
November 20, 2017
First Division, Justice Tijam
FACTS: Herein petitioner NAPOCOR filed an expropriation complaint on January 23,

2006 against respondents for the construction of steel transmission lines and wooden
electric poles for its Naga-Twi 230 KV (Single Bundle), Naga-Tiwi 230 KV (Double
Bundle) and 69 KV Naga-Daraga Transmission Lines. The total affected areas of the
subject parcels of land, located in Barangays Sagurong, San Agusting and San Jose,
Pili, CamSur, is 49, 173 square meters (sqm). The NAPOCOR sought an easement of
right of way to said affected area. Moreover, based on the tax declarations which
classified the subject lands as agricultural and the BIR’s zoning valuation, NAPOCOR
offered to pay P299,550.50 to the total area affected.
Respondents, however, objected to said amount offered. They claimed that the just
compensation should amount to P47,064,400 because the subject lands were already
classified as industrial, commercial and residential since 1993 based on several
resolutions and ordinances by the Municipality of Pili. Further, respondents sought
consequential damages for the areas left in between each transmission lines (known as
“dangling” areas), by way of counterclaim.
Later, the RTC formed an appraisal committee for purposes of determining just
compensation which, thereafter, submitted a Consolidated Report. The RTC then
rendered a Decision affirming the recommendation of the appraisal committee and fixed
the amount of PHP47,064,400 as just compensation based on the BIR zonal valuation
classifying said properties as residential, commercial and industrial as of the time of
filing the complaint on January 23, 2006. The RTC further rejected NAPOCOR’s claim
that it took possession of the property in 1972 and 1974 when respondents allegedly
allowed NAPOCOR to construct said transmission lines for lack of proof. The trial court
also awarded PHP22,227,800 as consequential damages for the affected areas.
NAPOCOR’s MoR was denied by the RTC. It raised an appeal before the CA which
denied the same as well as its MoR. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES: (1) When should the taking be reckoned? (2) Should the amount of just
compensation be based on the properties’ BIR zonal valuation corresponding to its
classification as agricultural in the tax declarations? (3) Is the award of consequential
damages for the “dangling” area proper?
HELD: (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the just compensation should be reckoned at
the time of the filing of the expropriation complaint, in this case, pursuant to Section 4,
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Said complaint was filed on January 23, 2006. This is so
because there is none whatsoever that NAPOCOR alleged in its complaint that there is
actual taking of the subject properties in the 1970s concerning the same transmission
lines, nor, was it successfully proven during the trial. Hence, there being no sufficient
proof, the time of the taking should be taken to mean as coinciding with the
commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Hence, the value of the subject
properties at the time of filing said complaint should be the basis for the determination of
just compensation.
In the words of the SC, the doctrine of the case is laid down, thus:
“Section 4, Rule 67 lays down the basic rule that the value of the just compensation is to
be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint,
whichever came first.”
“The case of National Transmission Corporation v. Oroville Development Corporation,

settles that just compensation should be reckoned from the date of actual taking when
such preceded the filing of the complaint for expropriation. In Oroville, the Court
explains that the State is only obliged to make good the loss sustained by the
landowner and considering the circumstances availing at the time the property was
taken. Deviation from this general rule was permitted in the cases of National Power
Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay and National Power Corporation v.
Spouses Saludares due to special circumstances therein obtaining which necessitated
a valuation of just compensation at the time the landowners initiated inverse
condemnation proceedings notwithstanding that taking of the properties occurred first.”
(2) The Supreme Court ruled that basing the value of the subject properties solely on
the tax declarations or BIR zonal valuation are only parts of several factors which the
court may consider to facilitate the determination of just compensation. The courts
“enjoy sufficient judicial discretion to determine the classification of lands, because such
classification is one of the relevant standards for the assessment of the value of lands
subject of expropriation proceedings.” It must be emphasized that this discretion in
classifying expropriated land is only limited to the purpose of determining just
compensation and is not meant to substitute to the power of LGUs to reclassify and
convert lands through local ordinance.
The SC’s doctrine is laid down, thus:
“The various provisions of the Constitution uniformly treat the payment of just
compensation as a limitation to the State’s exercise of eminent domain. Just
compensation x x x bears the consistent and settled meaning 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 qualify the meaning of
the word ‘compensation’ and to convey thereby the idea that the amount to be tendered
for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.”
“Further, the determination of just compensation in expropriation cases is a function

addressed to the discretion of the courts owing to the constitutional mandate that no
private property shall be taken for public use without payment of just compensation . As
such, legislative enactments, as well as executive issuances, fixing or providing for the
method of computing just compensation are tantamount to impermissible encroachment
on judicial prerogatives. As such, they are not binding on courts and are treated as
mere guidelines in ascertaining the amount of just compensation. Even the enumeration
of the standards for the assessment of the value of the land for purposes of
expropriation under Section 5 of RA 8974 (An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-
of-Way, Site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and Other
Purposes) reflects the non-exclusive, permissive and discretionary character thereof.”
(3) The Supreme Court held that the award of consequential damages is proper for the
presence of “dangling” areas in the subject properties as a consequence of the
transmission lines. “Dangling” areas are those small portions of the land not traversed
by the transmission project but which are nevertheless rendered useless in view of the
presence of the transmission lines. These “dangling” areas were observed at the ocular
inspection by the commissioners and that such area poses danger to the lives and limbs
of respondents and to farm workers, making the affected areas no longer suitable for
agricultural production.
“As a rule, just compensation, to which the owner of the property to be expropriated is
entitled, is equivalent to the market value. The rule is modified where only a part of a
certain property is expropriated. In such a case, the owner is not restricted to
compensation for the portion actually taken, he is also entitled to recover the
consequential damages, if any, to the remaining part of the property.”
Consequential damages is specifically provided under Section 6 of Rule 67 of the Rules

of Court, which provides in part: “The commissioners shall assess the consequential
damages to the property not taken and deduct from such consequential damages the
consequential benefits to be derived by the owner from the public use or purpose of the
property taken, the operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of the
business of the corporation or person taking the property. But in no case shall the
consequential benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the
owner be deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.”
“Thus, if as a result of expropriation, the remaining portion of the property suffers from
impairment or decrease in value, the award of consequential damages is proper.”
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.

National Power Corporation v. Apolonio V. Marasigan Et Al G.R. No. 220367 November 20 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Power Corporation v. Apolonio V. Marasigan Et Al G.R. No. 220367 November 20 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 Corporation v. Apolonio V. Marasigan Et Al G.R. No. 220367 November 20 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Power Corporation v. Apolonio V. Marasigan, et al, G.R. No.

FACTS: Herein petitioner NAPOCOR filed an expropriation complaint on January 23,

“The case of National Transmission Corporation v. Oroville Development Corporation,

The SC’s doctrine is laid down, thus:

“Further, the determination of just compensation in expropriation cases is a function

Consequential damages is specifically provided under Section 6 of Rule 67 of the Rules

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.

You might also like