National Power Corp. v. De la Rama

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 214968. October 5, 2020.]

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. LUIS A. DE LA RAMA, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 5, 2020, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 214968 (NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, v. LUIS A. DE LA RAMA, et al., respondents). — The Court resolves to NOTE respondents' Compliance dated January 28, 2020 with the Resolution dated October 1, 2019, submitting a compact disc [broken] containing the soft copy of the signed comment on the petition for review on certiorari in portable document format.

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision 1 dated January 28, 2014 and Resolution 2 dated August 28, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 00611. The assailed issuances reversed and set aside the November 28, 2003 Decision 3 of Branch 43 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City in Civil Case No. 01-11466, concerning the fixing of just compensation in an action involving the exercise of eminent domain.

Factual Antecedents

At the heart of the instant controversy is a parcel of agricultural land identified as Lot No. 1357-B, located at Hda. Sto. Niño, Brgy. Granada, Bacolod City, consisting an area of 630,794 square meters, more or less, and registered in the name of Luis A. De la Rama (respondent) under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 80659. 4 Petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC) sought a right of way traversing the subject property for the construction of its 138 KV Bacolod-Cadiz transmission line tower. According to the NPC's calculation a total area of 14,421 square meters of the subject property would be affected by the project. 5

The NPC offered to compensate respondents the amount of P97,446.22 based on the following computation:

1. IMPROVEMENTS: Damaged sugarcane:

QTY.	Name of Improvements	Unit Price	Amount
1935m2	Sugarcane Plantation	P27.32/m2	P52,864.20

	(to be damaged during final staking & stringing)
	= length x width
	= 387m x 5m
	= 1935m2

625m2	Sugarcane Plantation	P27.32/m2	P17,075.00

	(to be damaged during erection & excavation)
	= length x width
	= 25m x 25m
	= 625 Sq. m.

 

2. EASEMENT FEE:

Area Affected	= length x width less area affected by the towers
	= 412.02m x 35m = 14,421m2
	= 14,421m2 44.40m2
	= 14,376.60m2
a. Easement Fee	= Area affected x Market Value x 10%
= 14,376.60 m2 x 18.56/m2 (630,794m2) x 10%2
= 26,596.71	26,682.96

 

3. Tower Occupancy Fee:

BC 23 (44.40m2 x P18.56)	824.06
	––––––––––
Total Amount Due:	97,446.22 6

 

The foregoing offer of the NPC was, however, rejected by the respondents. Thus, the NPC instituted an eminent domain case with the RTC which was docketed as Civil Case No. 01-11466. 7 CAIHTE

In course of the proceedings, the RTC appointed as Commissioners the City Register of Deeds, the City Planning Officer, and the Branch Clerk of Court for the purpose of recommending the appropriate amount of just compensation due the respondents. 8 The Commissioners recommended the fair market value of P170.80 per square meter. 9

On November 8, 2003, the RTC rendered a Decision disposing as follows:

In view of the foregoing, the Court hereby orders the payment as easement fee for the area traversed by the transmission wires and just compensation for the taking of the area [where] the tower is erected, computed as follows:

(1) Occupation fee (Tower BC 23)

(2) Easement fee (portion traversed by the transmission wires)

(3) Damaged Sugarcane

TOTAL: P831,279.20

Since plaintiff already had paid defendant P245,954.17 receipt of which was acknowledged by the latter on July 2, 2003, plaintiff is only liable for P585,325.03 with interest at 6% per annum until full payment.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby ordered directing plaintiff to pay defendant (1) the sum of P585,325.03 plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum until full payment; and (2) the sum of Seven (7%) percent of the total award to defendant by way of attorney's fees.

Commissioners' fee is fixed at Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos per commissioner to be paid by the parties in equal proportions.

SO ORDERED. 10

Dissatisfied, both parties interposed separate appeals with the CA.

The NPC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, excoriated the RTC's imposition of an easement fee equivalent to 35% of the fair market value of the subject property. Asseverating that the use of the subject property was not completely impaired by the transmission line project, an easement fee of 10% was enough. 11 On the other hand, respondents asked for the full payment of the fair market value of the entire area of 14,421 square meters affected by the easement considering that the NPC's purpose for the installation of the transmission line tower is for a profit-making, instead of public purpose. 12

On January 28, 2014, the CA issued the herein assailed Decision dismissing petitioner's appeal but finding merit in respondents' arguments. Citing the case of NPC v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, 13 the CA ruled that the respondents are entitled to payment in full of the fair market value of the area affected by the easement. In addition, the CA also ordered the deletion of the award of attorney's fees for lack of basis.

Thus, the appellate court decreed:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the appeal of NPC is hereby DENIED while the defendants-appellants' appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated 28 November 2003 promulgated by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43 in Bacolod City in Civil Case No. 01-11466 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, NPC is liable to pay just compensation to the defendants-appellants amounting to Php1,917,195.83 with interest at 6% per annum from the time of the taking of possession until full payment. The award of attorney's fees is deleted.

SO ORDERED. 14

NPC's Motion for Partial Reconsideration 15 was denied by the CA in the herein assailed Resolution dated August 28, 2014.

Hence, the present recourse.

Issues

The NPC argues in the affirmative of the following issues:

I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE FULL FAIR MARKET VALUE, NOT JUST AN EASEMENT FEE, FOR THEIR PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY PETITIONER'S TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. DETACa

II.

ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE FULL FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THEIR PROPERTIES AFFECTION BY PETITIONER'S TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT RULING THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OVER SAID PROPERTIES UPON FULL PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION. 16

The NPC contends, in the main, that respondents were not completely deprived of the possession and actual use of the portion of the subject property affected by the transmission line project. Moreover, in the event that respondents are indeed adjudged to be entitled to payment of the full fair market value of the said area of the subject property, the CA should have ordered the transfer of ownership of the same to the NPC upon full payment of just compensation in favor of respondents.

In their Comment 17 to the petition, respondents manifested that they are adopting the findings and ruling of the CA.

Ruling of the Court

Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the true measure of which is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. 18 The word "just" is used to qualify the meaning of the word "compensation" and to convey the idea that the amount to be tendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. On the other hand, the word "compensation" means "a full indemnity or remuneration for the loss or damage sustained by the owner of property taken or injured for public use." 19 The valuation of property or determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the courts and not with administrative agencies. 20 Accordingly, any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes may serve only as a 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. 21

After a punctilious review of the records, We find no reversible error in the ruling of the CA. Hence, the petition is denied.

The CA's reliance on NPC v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation22 is well taken. In a litany of cases, 23 this Court has held that easements of right of way involving the installation of transmission lines impose a limitation that deprives the owners of the property the ordinary use thereof for an indefinite or even perpetual period of time. Thus, it is only just and proper to require NPC to recompense respondents the full market value of their property. 24

As to the NPC's alternative prayer that the Court order the transfer to its name of the title or ownership over the 14,421 square meters of area affected by the easement, the same must likewise be denied for being bereft of legal basis. In Rep. of the Phils. v. PLDT, 25 the Court ruled:

x x x Nominally, 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. x x x 26 (Emphasis and underscoring ours)

Verily, regardless of whether it has paid respondents' just compensation in full or not, the NPC cannot claim ownership over the area of the subject property affected by its transmission lines. It is settled that the owner of the servient estate retains ownership of the portion on which the easement is established. 27

WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals in rendering the assailed Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 00611, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 30-39; penned by Acting Executive Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.

2.Id. at 42-44; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla.

3.Id. at 45-64; rendered by Judge Philadelfa B. Pagapong-Agraviador.

4.Id. at 45-46.

5.Id. at 31.

6.Id. at 55-56.

7.Id. at 46.

8.Id. at 47-48.

9.Id. at 58.

10.Id. at 63-64.

11.Id. at 68.

12.Id. at 35-36.

13. 480 Phil. 470 (2004).

14.Rollo, p. 39.

15.Id. at 65-70.

16.Id. at 16.

17.Id. at 127-128.

18.Republic v. Jose Gamir-Consuelo Diaz Heirs Association, Inc., G.R. No. 218732, November 12, 2018, 885 SCRA 254, 262.

19.Rep. of the Phils., et al. v. Judge Mupas, 769 Phil. 21, 122 (2015).

20.Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, 515 Phil. 467, 477 (2006).

21.Rep. of the Philippines v. Heirs of Santiago, 808 Phil. 1, 11 (2017).

22.Supra note 11.

23.National Power Corporation v. Sps. Saludares, 686 Phil. 967 (2012); National Power Corporation v. Tuazon, 668 Phil. 301 (2011); National Power Corporation v. Ong Co, 598 Phil. 58 (2009); National Power Corp. v. Vda. De Capin, et al., 590 Phil. 665 (2008); National Power Corp. v. Judge Paderanga, 502 Phil. 722 (2005); NAPOCOR v. Spouses Igmedio, 452 Phil. 649 (2003); National Power Corp. v. Sps. Gutierrez, 271 Phil. 1, 7 (1991).

24.National Power Corporation v. Sps. Zabala, 702 Phil. 491, 501 (2013).

25. 136 Phil. 20 (1969).

26.Id. at 29-30.

27.Sps. Mercader, et al. v. Sps. Bardilas, 788 Phil. 136, 153 (2016).