Napocor vs Purefoods Corp., Solid Development Corporation, Jose
Ortega Jr., Silvestre Bautista, Alfredo Cabande, Heirs of Trinidad, Moldex
Realty Inc.
G.R. No. 160725, September 12 2008 [Eminent domain; determination
of just compensation]
FACTS:
Napocor sought to acquire an easement of right-of-way over
certain parcels of land situated in four towns of the province of Bulacan for
the construction and maintenance of its 500 KV Transmission Line project in
Northern Luzon. It filed a special civic action for eminent domain before the
trial court against the registered owners or claimants of parcel of lands
affected. The complaint alleged the public purpose of the Northwestern Luzon
Project, as well as the urgency and necessity of acquiring easements of
right-of-way over the said parcels of land.
Only PFI, SDC, Moldex and the heirs of Trinidad filed their
respective answers raising the issue of just compensation of their property to
be expropriated. A report submitted to the RTC recommending that the
compensation due from NAPOCOR be based on the fair market value of P 600/sq m
for properties belonging to Moldex and P 400/sq m for properties belonging to
the rest of the respondents. RTC rendered a Decision based on the report,
ordering payment of just compensation by Napocor to name respondents with legal
interest of 6%/annum until finality of the Decision and at 12%/annum from its
finality until full payment. CA affirmed RTC decision in all respects except
for the period during which the interest of 12% per annum would accrue.
NAPOCOR assailed the CA's reliance on the commissioners’
report in fixing just compensation based on the full market value of the
affected properties. NAPOCOR contends that only an easement of right-of-way for
the construction of the transmission line project is being claimed, thus, only
an easement fee equivalent to 10% of the fair market value of the properties
should be paid to the affected property owners (Section 3A, R.A. 6395, as
amended and the implementing regulation of R.A. No. 8974).
ISSUE:
Whether or not only an easement fee of 10% of the market
value of the expropriated properties should be paid to the affected owners.
RULING:
No. The Court ruled that the just compensation in the amount
of only 10% of the market value of the property was not enough to indemnify the
incursion on the affected property.
Expropriation is not limited to the acquisition of real
property with a corresponding transfer of title or possession. The right-of-way
easement resulting in a restriction or limitation of property rights over the
land traversed by transmission lines also falls within the ambit of the term
"expropriation."
In eminent domain or expropriation proceedings, the general
rule is that the just compensation to which the owner of the condemned property
is entitled is the market value. The aforementioned rule, however, is modified
where only a part of a certain property is expropriated. In addition to the
market value of the portion taken, he is also entitled to recover the
consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property. At the
same time, from the total compensation must be deducted the value of the
consequential benefits.”
Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 6395, as amended, and the
implementing rule of R.A. No. 8974 indeed state that only 10% of the market
value of the property is due to the owner of the property subject to an
easement of right-of-way, said rule is not binding on the Court. Well-settled
is the rule that the determination of “just compensation” in eminent domain
cases is a judicial function.
