SECOND DIVISION
NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, G.R. No. 160725
Petitioner,
Present:
- versus-
QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
PUREFOODS
CORPORATION, VELASCO, JR.,
and
SOLID
DEVELOPMENT BRION, JJ.
CORPORATION,
JOSE ORTEGA,
JR.,
SILVESTRE BAUTISTA,
ALFREDO
CABANDE, HEIRS OF Promulgated:
VICTOR
REALTY INCORPORATED,
Respondents. September 12, 2008
x
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
D E C I S I O N
Tinga, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision[2]
dated 07 November 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 73460 which
affirmed with modification the Decision[3] dated
17 September 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos,
Bulacan, Branch 18 in Civil Case No. 915-M-97 for
eminent domain.
The
following factual antecedents are undisputed and are matters of record.
Petitioner
National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) is a government-owned and controlled
corporation created by virtue of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6395,[4] as
amended, for the purpose of undertaking the development of hydroelectric power generation,
the production of electricity from nuclear, geothermal and other sources, and the transmission
of electric power on a nationwide basis. It is also empowered to acquire
property incident to or necessary, convenient or proper to carry out the
purposes for which it was created,[5] enter private property in the lawful
performance of its business purposes provided that the owners of such private
property shall be indemnified for any damage that may be caused thereby, and
exercise the right of eminent domain.
To
construct and maintain its Northwestern Luzon Project, or particularly the the San Jose-San Manuel 500 KV Transmission Line Project, NAPOCOR had to acquire an easement of right-of-way
over certain parcels of land situated in
the towns of Angat, San Rafael and San Ildefonso and in the city of San Jose del Monte―all in the province of Bulacan.
On
The complaint alleged that the
defendants were either the registered owners or the claimants of the affected pieces
of property described as follows:
|
Owner/ Claimant |
Blk. No. |
Tax Dec. No. |
Title No. |
Total Area In Sq. M. |
Area Affected In Sq. M. |
Assessed Value
|
Classifi-cation Of Land |
|
1. Arcadio
T. Cruz/ Purefoods Corp. |
2965 |
95-
01010-01090 |
RT-73-15217 |
246,061 |
11,083 |
|
Cogon
land |
|
2. Calixto
Cruz/ Purefoods Corp. |
1948 |
97-01010-00153 |
T-278-287
(M) |
27,981 |
4,161 |
14,979.60 |
Poultry/
Piggery/ Livestock Site |
|
3. Deogracias
C. Mendoza/ Moldex Realty Corp. |
1258 |
94-21011-02796 |
- |
18,992 |
3,387.50 |
7,398.31 |
Agri-cultural
|
|
4. Hacienda Sapang Palay/Moldex Realty Corporation |
1255 |
96-21017-00134 |
- |
1,450,810 |
25,170 |
77,669.12 |
Agri-cultural |
|
5. Solid Dev’t. Corp. rep. by Domingo P. Gaw
|
1889 |
93-020-00171 |
CLOA-T-2322 |
21,743 |
6,871 |
8,039.00 |
Riceland |
|
6. Jose Ortega, Jr. |
2186-C |
00027 |
T-50926 |
12,060 |
2,471 |
4,293.27 |
Riceland/Pasture |
|
7. Silvestre Bautista/ Alfredo
Cabande rep. by Temestocles
Cabande, Jr.
|
1981-B |
93-020-00564 |
- |
7,785 |
5,927 |
6,934.70 |
Agri-cultural |
|
8. Heirs of Lucia Vda. de Trinidad/ Alfredo Cabande
rep. by Temestocles Cabande,
Jr. |
1981-A |
93-020-00563 |
CLOA-T-6359 |
13,200 |
3,356 |
3,926.52 |
Agri-cultural |
[Total] 62,426.50 sq. m.
P126,565.42[7]
The complaint also 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 consisting
of 62,426.50 square meters. It also averred that the affected properties had
not been expropriated for public use and were selected by NAPOCOR in a manner
compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury and that
the negotiations between NAPOCOR and the defendants had failed.[8] The
complaint prayed, among others, that the RTC issue a writ of possession in
favor of NAPOCOR in the event that it would be refused entry to the affected
properties.[9]
Among the several defendants, only herein
respondents Heirs of Trinidad,[10]
SDC,[11] Moldex[12]
and Purefoods[13] filed
their respective answers.
For their part, respondent Heirs of
Trinidad claimed that they should be indemnified for the value of the affected property
based on the prevailing market purchase price of P750.00/sq m and that co-defendant
Alfredo Cabande, not being the owner of any of the
affected properties, should not be compensated. They added that there are other parcels of
land within the area which are more suitable for NAPOCOR’s
project.
Respondent Moldex,
for its part, alleged that the expropriation of part of the landholding in
which it has a propriety interest would divest the peripheral area of its value
and render the same totally useless; thus, it should be compensated for the loss
of the peripheral area as well.[14]
In praying for the dismissal of the
complaint, respondent SDC averred that the taking would not serve any public
purpose and that the selection of its property for expropriation would not be
compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.[15]
Respondent Purefoods
similarly prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of the
failure of NAPOCOR to append copies of the pertinent
Meanwhile, NAPOCOR filed its Urgent Ex
Parte Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Possession[17]
on 19 December 1997 wherein it alleged that it had deposited with the Land Bank
of the Philippines, NPC Branch, Diliman, Quezon City the amount of P126,565.42
as provisional valuation of the properties sought to be expropriated and that
it had sent a Notice to Take Possession[18]
of said properties. On
After the pre-trial conference, the
RTC issued an Order[20]
dated 14 June 1999, reflecting the parties’ agreement to limit the issues to
the amount of just compensation and to whether respondent Moldex
was entitled to just compensation on the devaluation of the peripheral area
within its property.
When the first set of appointed commissioners
failed to discharge their duties, the RTC appointed a second set of commissioners—
namely, Ret. General Juanito Malto,
Atty. Emmanuel Ortega and Atty. Antonio V. Magdasoc—who
took their oaths of office and forthwith conducted a hearing.[21] On
P600.00/sq m for properties belonging
to respondent Moldex and P400.00/sq m for the
undeveloped or underdeveloped properties belonging to the rest of the
respondents.[23] The case
was then submitted for decision.[24]
On
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing premises, Judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Ordering the expropriation of:
a. 3,305 square meters portion of 18,992
square meters of land of Lot 1258-A, situated in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, described and covered by Tax Declaration No.
94-21011-02796 issued by then Municipal Assessor of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, owned by/registered in the name of MOLDEX REALTY
INCORPORATED;
b. 24,180 square meters portion of
1,450,810 square meters of land (Lot 2A-1, formerly Lot 1255), situated in San
Jose del Monte, Bulacan, described in and covered by
Tax Declaration No. 96-21017-00134 by then Municipal Assessor of San Jose del
Monte, Bulacan, owned by/registered in the name of
MOLDEX REALTY INCORPORATED;
c. 11,083 square meters portion of 246,061
square meters of land (
d. 4,161 square meters portion of 27,981 square
meters of land (
e. 6,871 square meters portion of 27,743
square meters of land (Lot 1889), situated in San Idelfonso,
Bulacan, described in and covered by CLOA T-2322,
issued by the Register of Deeds of Bulacan, owned
by/registered in the name of SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION;
f.
2,471
square meters portion of 12,060 square meters of land (
g. 5,927 square meters portion of 7,785
square meters of land (Lot 1981-B), situated in San Idelfonso,
Bulacan, described in and covered by Tax Declaration
No. 93-020-00564, issued by the Municipal Assessor of San Ildefonso,
Bulacan, owned by/registered in/claimed by Silvestre
Bautista/Alfredo Cabande;
h. 3,356 square meters portion of 13,200
square meters of land (Lot 1981-A), situated in San Ildefonso,
Bulacan, described in and covered by CLOA T-6359,
issued by the Register of Deeds of Bulacan, owned
by/registered in/claimed by the Heirs of Victor Trinidad/Alfredo Cabande,
all in
favor of plaintiff NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION and against above-named
defendants, for the public use or purpose described in the Complaint and in
this Decision;
2. fixing the amount of Six Hundred Pesos (P600.00)
per square meter for 27,485 square meters of land of MOLDEX REALTY INCORPORATED
as just compensation and fixing the amount of Four Hundred Pesos (P400.00)
per square meter for 15,244 square meters of land of PUREFOODS CORPORATION,
6,871 square meters of land of SOLID DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 2,471 square
meters of land of JOSE ORTEGA, JR., 5,927 square meters of land of SILVESTRE
BAUTISTA/ALFREDO CABANDE and 3,356 square meters of land of the HEIRS OF VICTOR
TRINIDAD/ALFREDO CABANDE, as just compensation, to be paid by plaintiff
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION to said defendants/claimants or their
representatives, deducting therefrom any unpaid and
overdue real estate taxes due to the Government;
3. ordering payment of said
just compensation by plaintiff NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION to named defendants
or the latter’s representatives with legal interest at 6% per annum from
Let
each copy of this DECISION be furnished to and recorded in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Bulacan, Municipal Assessor of Angat, Bulacan, City Assessor of
City of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, Municipal Assessor
of San Ildefonso, Bulacan
and Municipal Assessor of San Rafael, Bulacan.
No costs is hereby ordered since plaintiff NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION is, under its Charter, exempt from payment of costs of the
proceedings.
SO ORDERED.[26]
Respondent
Moldex sought reconsideration of the aforesaid
decision[27] but the
same was denied by the RTC in its Order[28]
dated
Respondent Moldex
argued that the RTC erred in the following instances: (1) in ruling that just
compensation should be paid at P600.00/sq m and not P1,600.00/sq m; (2) in not imposing an interest of 12% per
annum reckoned from the taking until the finality of the decision; and (3) in
not ordering the payment of just compensation for the peripheral portion of the
affected property.
For its part, NAPOCOR assailed the RTC’s valuations of the properties at P600.00/sq m
and P400.00/sq m, contending that the same are not based on the value of
the properties at the time of taking when the properties were still
agricultural in nature. It claimed that only an easement fee, which should not
exceed 10% of the declared market value, should be paid to respondents. It also
questioned the award of interest of 12% per annum from the finality of the
decision until the full payment of the amount adjudged.
On
Only respondent Moldex
sought reconsideration of the
NAPOCOR, through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), elevated
the case to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari.[31] Respondent
Moldex nonetheless filed a comment on the petition, stating
that its motion for reconsideration of the
Purefoods[34] and SDC[35]
likewise filed separate comments on NAPOCOR’s
petition.
However, on
In a Resolution[40]
dated
In the instant petition, NAPOCOR is
assailing the Court of Appeals’ 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. NAPOCOR cites
Section 3A, R.A. 6395, as amended[43] and the implementing regulation of R.A. No.
8974[44] in
support of this argument.
Respondent Purefoods
counters that the appellate court’s determination of just compensation is a
factual finding, which may be reviewed by this Court only when the case falls
within the recognized exceptions to the prohibition against factual review. Since the instant case does not fall under
any of the exceptions, it argues that the issue of just compensation may not be
reviewed in the instant proceeding.
On the other hand, there is a
question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the
probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts
being admitted and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and
jurisprudence on the matter. On the other hand, there is a question of fact
when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged
facts. When there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or
not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a
question of law.[45] In the
instant case, NAPOCOR is raising a question of law, that is, whether or not only
an easement fee of 10% of the market value of the expropriated properties
should be paid to the affected owners. This issue does not call for the
reevaluation of the probative value of the evidence presented but rather the
determination of whether the pertinent laws cited by NAPOCOR in support of its
argument are applicable to the instant case.
Now, to the core
issue of just compensation.
The question of just compensation for
an easement of right-of-way over a parcel of land that will be traversed by NAPOCOR’s transmission lines has already been answered in National
Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development
Corporation.[46] In that
case, the Court held that because of the nature of the easement, which will deprive
the normal use of the land for an indefinite period, just compensation must be
based on the full market value of the affected properties. The Court explained,
thus:
Granting arguendo that
what petitioner acquired over respondent’s property was purely an easement of a
right of way, still, we cannot sustain its view that
it should pay only an easement fee, and not the full value of the property. The acquisition of such an easement falls
within the purview of the power of eminent domain. This conclusion finds support in similar
cases in which the Supreme Court sustained the award of just compensation for
private property condemned for public use. Republic v. PLDT held thus:
“x x x. Normally, of course, the power of eminent
domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to,
and possession of, the expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why
the said power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of
condemned property, without loss of title and possession. It is unquestionable that real property may,
through expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right of way.”
True, an easement of a right of way transmits no
rights except the easement itself, and respondent retains full ownership of the
property. The acquisition of such
easement is, nevertheless, not gratis.
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.[47]
Also, in National Power
Corporation v. Aguirre-Paderanga,[48] the Court noted that the passage of NAPOCOR’s transmission lines over the affected property
causes not only actual damage but also restriction on the agricultural and
economic activity normally undertaken on the entire property. While NAPOCOR in
that case was seeking to acquire only an easement of right-of-way, the Court
nonetheless 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.
The Court explained therein that 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 on property rights over the land traversed by
transmission lines, as in the present case, also falls within the ambit of the
term “expropriation.”[49] 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. Market value is “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.
The aforementioned rule, however, 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. 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.”[50]
While 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.[51] In Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay,[52]
the Court held that any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes
may serve only as guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just
compensation but it may not substitute the court’s own judgment as to what
amount should be awarded and how
to arrive at such
amount.[53] The executive
department or the legislature may make the
initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in
the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use
without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate
that its own determination shall prevail over the court’s findings. Much less
can the courts be precluded from looking into the “just-ness” of the decreed compensation.[54]
NAPOCOR argues that the Court of
Appeals should not have adopted the commissioners’ report hook, line and sinker
because the same was based exclusively on relative prices of adjoining lots
without showing evidence on their proximity and of the sales of similar
classification.
The duty of the court in considering
the commissioners’ report is to satisfy itself that just compensation will be
made to the defendant by its final judgment in the matter, and to fulfill its
duty in this respect, the court will be obliged to exercise its discretion in
dealing with the report as the particular circumstances of the case may
require. Rule 67, Section 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly shows
that the trial court has the discretion to act upon the commissioners’ report
in any of the following ways: (1) it may accept the same and render judgment
therewith; or (2) for cause shown, it may [a] recommit the report to the
commissioners for further report of facts; or [b] set aside the report and
appoint new commissioners; or [c] accept the report in part and reject it in
part; and it may make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the
plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his right of expropriation,
and to the defendant just compensation for the property so taken.[55]
In the instant case, the Court finds
no reversible error in the RTC’s determination of just
compensation even if the same was based on the commissioners’ report, there
being no showing that said report was tainted with irregularity, fraud or bias.
Noteworthy are the following observations made by the Court of Appeals on the RTC’s assessment of the commissioners’ report:
In the case at bar, the trial court based its
determination of just compensation on the reports and proceedings made by the
Commissioners, by adopting the findings of Commissioners’ Ortega and Magdasoc who made a Joint Commissioners’ Report. The
aforesaid report has also taken into consideration the report made by the other
Commissioner B/G Malto. In their joint report, the
commissioners recommended that the fair market value of the property subject of
the expropriation proceedings, owned by Moldex is P700.00
per square meter while other properties at P400.00. In the separate
report of Commissioner Malto, at first it valued the
subject properties at P700.00 per square meter and subsequently, it made
an amended report, taking into account the Discovery of the Contracts to Sell
during the year 1996 showing that the value of the property of Moldex was P1,600 per
square meter and another in the year 1999 that shows that its value was P1,800
per square meter. x x
x However, there was no evidence that such lands
subject of the aforesaid contracts to sell is sufficiently similar to the
properties subject of expropriation owned by appellant Moldex.
x x x It cannot be said
that all properties in this area have the same market value nor do the
contracts to sell conclusive as to the fair market price of a parcel of land
because it may be above its fair market value. Appellant Moldex
did not present evidence showing that the lots subject of contracts to sell is
similar to the lands subject of expropriation.
Thus, evidence presented by appellant Moldex
cannot be a basis in determining the real fair market value of the properties
subject of expropriation. x x x
x
x x It should be observed in the report made by
the Commissioners that they made an ocular inspection of the area and they
found that the property is semi-cogonal and
agricultural in character and that during their inspection they noticed trace
of old rice stalks that marked the surrounding [e]specially under the
transmission lines of the plaintiff-appellant NPC. Since the Commissioners are
disinterested persons who made the ocular inspection and report, their report
is entitled to great weight.
x x x It
can be clearly deduced from the report of the Commissioners that although the
report was made in year 2001, they considered other facts which were reflective
of the value of the subject properties even before such time. x x x they also considered the Deeds of Sale execute[d] in 1996
and they also inquired with the Office of the Provincial Assessors to aid them
in arriving at the fair market value of the subject lands. x x x n the joint report of
Commissioners’ Ortega and Magdasoc, it was reflected
that the value of the property ranged from P500.00 to P1,000.00
if the property is developed and improved and in the report of Commissioner Malto, from an appraisal of Cuervo
Appraisers, Inc. and Asian Appraisal Co. the developed lots in
the area could be valued at P525.00 to P700.00 per square meter. x
x x Thus, from this [sic]
facts, it could be clearly shown that in recommending the valuation of the
subject properties, allowance was made taking into consideration the time of
taking of the property
subject of expropriation and the filing
of complaint. x x x [56]
Based on the foregoing elucidation,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s finding of
the value of just compensation based on the majority report’s valuation of P400.00
per square meter for the properties belonging to respondents with the exception
of respondent Moldex. Both the Court of Appeals and
the RTC were convinced that the commissioners’ recommendation was arrived at
after a judicious consideration of all factors. Absent any showing that said
valuation is exorbitant and unjustified, the same is binding on this
Court.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for
review on certiorari is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 73460 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest 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.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified 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
[2]Penned by J. Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, Acting Chairman of the Special Fifth Division and concurred in by JJ. Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Rosmari D. Carandang.
[4]Entitled, “An Act Revising the Charter of the
National Power Corporation;” effective
[20]
[24]
[25]Supra note 3.
[27]Records, pp. 388-394.
[28]
[30]CA rollo, pp. 270-283.
[31]Supra note 1.
[32]Rollo, pp. 89-101.
[33]
[35]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[43]Republic Act 6395, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 938, Section 3A provides: 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.
(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.
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 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 therefore.
[44]Entitled “An Act to
Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-Of-Way, Site or Location for National
Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes;” effective