FIRST DIVISION
|
NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION,
Petitioner, -
versus - AURELLANO S. TIANGCO, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 170846
Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: February
6, 2007 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA,
J.:
In this petition
for review on
certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC) seeks the
annulment and setting aside of the Decision[1]
dated March 14, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 53576, as reiterated in its Resolution[2]
of December 2, 2005 which denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The
assailed decision modified that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tanay,
Rizal, Branch 80, by increasing the amount of just compensation due the
respondents in an expropriation case filed against them by the petitioner.
The facts:
Herein respondents
Aurellano,
On the other
hand, petitioner NPC is a
government-owned and controlled
corporation created for the purpose of undertaking the development and
generation of power from whatever source. NPC’s charter (Republic Act No. 6395)
authorizes the corporation to acquire private property and exercise the right
of eminent domain.
NPC requires
19,423 square meters of the respondents’ aforementioned property, across which
its 500Kv Kalayaan-San Jose Transmission
Line Project will traverse. NPC’s Segregation
Plan[3]
for the purpose shows that the desired right-of-way will cut through the respondents’ land, in such
a manner that 33,392 square meters thereof will be left
separated from 99,372 square meters of
the property. Within the portion sought to
be expropriated stand fruit-bearing tress, such as mango, avocado, jackfruit, casuy, santol,
calamansi, sintones and coconut trees.
On
On
On P81,204.00, representing the temporary provisional value
of the area subject of the expropriation
prior to the taking of possession thereof. On
Thereafter,
an ocular inspection of the premises was conducted and hearings before the board
of commissioners were held, during which the Municipal Assessor of Tanay, Rizal was presented.
He submitted a record of the Schedule of Values for taxation purposes and a
certification to the effect that the unit value of the respondents’ property is
P21,000.00 per hectare.
On P30.00
per square meter or P582,690.00[5]
in the aggregate; and for the improvements thereon, Afuang placed a valuation of
P2,093,950.00. The figures are in contrast with the respondents’ own valuation
of P600,600.00, for the area, and P4,935,500.00, for the improvements.
On
For its
part, NPC made it clear that it is interested only in acquiring an easement of right-of-way
over the respondents’ property and that ownership of the area over which the
right-of-way will be established shall remain with the respondents. For this
reason, NPC claims that it should pay, in addition to the agreed or adjudged
value of the improvements on the area, only an easement fee in an amount
equivalent to ten per cent (10%) of the market value of the property as
declared by the respondents or by the Municipal Assessor, whichever is lower,
as provided for under Section 3-A of Republic Act
No. 6395, as amended by Presidential
Decree 938.[6]
The court-appointed commissioner, Ms. Amelia de Guzman Carbonell,
found that the risk and dangerous nature of the transmission line project essentially
deprive the respondents of the use of
the area. Nonetheless, she recommended that the determination of just
compensation should be relegated to “expert appraisers.”[7]
From the
evidence before it, the trial court made a determination that the market value
of the property is P2.09 per square meter, or P40,594.07 for the entire 19,423 square meters needed by NPC,
and not the P30.00 per square meter claimed by the respondents. Neither
did the trial court consider NPC’s reliance on Section 3-A of Republic Act No.
6395, as amended by Presidential Decree 938, the court placing more weight on
the respondents’ argument that
expropriation would result in the substantial impairment of the use of
the area needed, even though what is sought is a mere aerial right-of-way. The court
found as reasonable the amount of P324,750.00
offered by NPC for the improvements, as the same is based on the official
current schedule of values as determined by the Municipal Assessor of Tanay,
Rizal.
Hence, in
its decision[8] of
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
judgment is hereby rendered:
1.
Expropriating in favor of [NPC] a parcel of land
covering a total area of 19,423 sq.m. covered by TCT No. M-17860 owned by the [respondents];
2.
Ordering the amount of P40,594.07
as just compensation for the 19,423 square meters of land affected by the
expropriations; and the amount of P324,750.00 as reasonable compensation for
the improvements on the land expropriated with legal interest from the time of
possession by the plaintiff. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
(Words in brackets supplied.)
The respondents
moved for reconsideration, presenting for the first time a document entitled “Bureau
of Internal Revenue Circular of Appraisal,” which shows that for the year 1985,
lands in Barangay Sampaloc were valued at P30.00 per square meter; for
the year 1992, at P80.00 per square meter; and for year 1994, at P100.00 per
square meter. Respondents maintain that the price of P30.00 per square
meter for the needed area of 19,423 square meters is the reasonable amount and
should be the basis for fixing the amount of just compensation due them. The trial
court denied the motion, stating that the BIR circular in question was
belatedly filed and therefore NPC could not have opposed its presentation.
From the
aforesaid decision of the trial court, both NPC and the respondents went on
appeal to the CA whereat the separate appeals were consolidated and docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 53576. The appellate
court found merit in the respondents’ appeal, and disregarded the P2.09
per square meter valuation of the trial court, which was based on a 1984
tax declaration. Instead, the CA placed reliance upon a 1993 tax
declaration, “being only two years removed from the time of taking.”[9]
The appellate court determined the time of taking to be in 1991. Thus, the
greater value of P913,122.00 as declared in Tax
Declaration No. 011-2667 dated
WHEREFORE, the instant Appeal is GRANTED. The decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Tanay, Rizal, Branch 80 dated February 19, 1996 is hereby MODIFIED and the compensation awarded
for the 19,423 square meters of land affected is increased to P116,538.00, and the reasonable compensation for the
improvements thereon is likewise increased to P325,025.00, with legal interest
from the time of possession by the plaintiff-appellee NAPOCOR. No pronouncement
as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
NPC moved
for reconsideration, but its motion was denied by the appellate court in its
resolution[11]
of
Hence,
NPC’s instant petition for review, submitting for our resolution only the
following issues with respect to the amount of just compensation that
must be paid the respondents for the expropriated portion (19,423 square
meters) of their property:
1. Is it to be based on the 1984
or the 1993 valuation?
2. Should NPC pay for the value
of the land being taken, or should it be limited to what is provided for under
P.D. 938, that is, ten per cent (10%) of its market value as declared by the
owner or the assessor (whichever is lower), considering that the purpose for
which the property is being taken is merely for the establishment of a safe and
free passage for its overhead transmission lines?
There is no
issue as to the improvements. Since the P325,025.00
valuation therefor is the very price set by the NPC commissioner, to which the corporation
did not object but otherwise adopts, the Court fixes the amount of P325,025.00
as just compensation for the improvements.
We now come
to the more weighty question of what amount is just by
way of compensation for the 19,423 square-meter portion of the respondents’
property.
In eminent
domain cases, the time of taking is the filing of the complaint, if there was
no actual taking prior thereto. Hence, in this case, the value of the property
at the time of the filing of the complaint on
Normally, the time of the taking coincides with the filing of the complaint for expropriation. Hence, many rulings of this Court have equated just compensation with the value of the property as of the time of filing of the complaint consistent with the above provision of the Rules. So too, where the institution of the action precedes entry into the property, the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the filing of the complaint.
The trial court fixed the value of
the property at its 1984 value,
while the CA, at its 1993 worth.
Neither of the two determinations is correct. For purposes of just
compensation, the respondents should be paid the value of the property as of
the time of the filing of the complaint which is deemed to be the time of
taking the property.
It was
certainly unfair for the trial court to have considered a property value several
years behind its worth at the time the complaint in this case was filed on
The
expropriation proceedings in this case having been initiated by NPC on
Just
compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from its owner by the expropriator. In
this case, this simply means the property’s fair market value at
the time of the filing of the complaint, or “that sum of money which a person
desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to
sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received therefor.”[14]
The
measure is not the taker’s gain, but the owner’s loss.
In the
determination of such value, the court is not limited to the assessed value of
the property or to the schedule of market values determined by the provincial
or city appraisal committee; these values consist but one factor in the
judicial valuation of the property.[15]
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[16]
All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, as well
as its improvements and capabilities, should be considered.[17]
Neither of
the two determinations made by the courts below is therefore correct. A new one
must be arrived at, taking into consideration the foregoing pronouncements.
Now, to the
second issue raised by petitioner NPC.
In several cases, the
Court struck down NPC’s consistent
reliance on Section 3-A of Republic Act No. 6395, as amended by Presidential
Decree 938.[18] True, an easement of a right-of-way transmits
no rights except the
easement itself, and the respondents would retain full
ownership of the property taken. Nonetheless, the acquisition of such easement is not gratis. The limitations on the use of the property
taken for an indefinite period would deprive its owner of the normal use thereof. For this reason, the latter is entitled to
payment of a just compensation, which must be neither more nor less than the
monetary equivalent of the land taken.[19]
While the power of eminent domain results in
the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the expropriated
property, no cogent reason appears why said power may not be availed of to
impose only a burden upon the owner of the condemned property, without loss of
title and possession.[20]
However, if the easement is intended to perpetually or indefinitely
deprive the owner of his proprietary rights through the imposition of
conditions that affect the ordinary use, free enjoyment and disposal of the
property or through restrictions and limitations that are inconsistent with the
exercise of the attributes of ownership, or when the introduction of structures
or objects which, by their nature, create or increase the probability of
injury, death upon or destruction of life and property found on the land is
necessary, then the owner should be compensated for the monetary equivalent of
the land, in accordance with our ruling in NPC v. Manubay Agro-Industrial:
As correctly observed by the CA,
considering the nature and the effect of the installation power lines, the
limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period would deprive
respondent of normal use of the property.
For this reason, the latter is entitled to payment of a just
compensation, which must be neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent
of the land.[21]
The
evidence suggests that NPC’s transmission line project that traverses the respondents’
property is perpetual, or at least indefinite, in nature. Moreover, not to be discounted is the
fact that the high-tension current to be conveyed through said transmission
lines evidently poses a danger to life and limb; injury, death or destruction
to life and property within the vicinity. As the Court held in NPC v. Chiong,[22] it
is not improper to assume
that NPC will erect structures for its
transmission lines within the property. What is sought to be expropriated in this case is, at
its longest extent, 326.34 meters, and through it may be built
several structures, not simply one. Finally,
if NPC were to have its way, respondents will continue
to pay the realty taxes due on the affected
portion of their property, an imposition that, among others, merits the rejection
of NPC’s thesis of payment of a mere percentage of the property’s actual value.
WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is GRANTED in part
in that the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated March 14, 2005 vis a
vis the award of P116,538.00,
as and by way of just compensation for the 19,423 square meters of the
respondents’ property, is SET ASIDE,
and the case is ordered REMANDED to the
court of origin for the proper determination of the amount of just compensation
for the portion thus taken, based on our pronouncements hereon. The same
decision, however, is AFFIRMED,
insofar as it pertains to the award of P325,025.00
for the improvements, with legal interest from the time of actual possession by
the petitioner.
No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, with Associate Justices Portia Aliňo-Hormachuelos and Juan Q. Enriquez, concurring; Rollo, pp. 23-32.
[2]
[3]
[4] The complaint was later amended because it failed to state the true area that was required for the project, which is 19,423 square meters. Supra note 6.
[5] The total amounts stated in the records (the commissioners’ reports included) are inaccurate, for they are based on the original area of 22,200 square meters that NPC originally sought for the project; a resurvey was conducted, and it was found that only 19,423 square meters was required therefor. The complaint was amended accordingly, but only after the commissioners have prepared and submitted their respective reports.
[6] P.D. 938, “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 Decrees Nos. 380, 395 and 758 provides:
“Section 4. A new section shall be inserted to be known as Section 3A of the same Act to read as follows:
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.
In determining the just compensation of the property or property sought to be acquired through expropriation proceedings, the same shall
(a) With respect to the acquired land or portion thereof, not exceed 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.
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.
In addition to the just compensation for
easement of right-of-way, the owner of the land or owner of the improvement, as
the case may be, shall be compensated for the improvements actually damaged by
the construction and maintenance of the transmission lines, in an amount not
exceeding the market value thereof as 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; Provided, that in cases any
buildings, houses and similar structures are actually affected by the
right-of-way for the transmission lines, their transfer, if feasible, shall be
effected at the expense of the Corporation; Provided, further, that such market
value prevailing at the time the Corporation gives notice to the landowner or
administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property, to the effect
that his land or portion thereof is needed for its projects or works shall be
used as basis to determine the just compensation therefor.”
[7] Report of Commissioner Amelia de Guzman Carbonell, Clerk of Court V, Rollo, pp.73-75.
[8]
[9]
[10] Supra note 1.
[11] Supra note 2.
[12] G.R. No. 113194,
[13] G.R. No. 78742,
[14] National Power Corporation v. Chiong,
G.R. No. 152436,
[15] Republic v. Ker and Company Limited, G.R.
No. 136171,
[16] National Power Corporation v. Chiong, G.R.
No. 152436,
[17] Export
Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603,
[18] Didipio Earth-Savers’ Multi-Purpose
Association, Inc. (DESAMA) v. Gozun, G.R. No. 157882,
[19] NPC
v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, G.R. No. 150936,
[20] NPC v. Gutierrez, supra.
[21] NPC v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, supra.
[22] Supra. Therein the Court declared:
Petitioner averred in its complaint in Civil Case No. 1442-I, that it sought to acquire “an easement of right-of-way” over portions of the properties owned by respondents, for a total of 10,950 square meters. However, a perusal of its complaint shows that petitioner also stated that it would erect structures for its transmission lines on portions of the expropriated property. In other words, the expropriation was not to be limited for the purpose of “easement of right-of-way.” In fact, in their Answer, the Heirs of Agrifina Angeles, alleged that petitioner had actually occupied an area of 4,000 square meters wherein it constructed structures for its transmission lines and was seeking to occupy another 4,000 square meters. Petitioner failed to controvert this material allegation. Justifiably, the market value of these 4,000 square meters allegedly occupied by the petitioner has become the very crux of the present case.