National Power Corporation v. Dilao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC) filed a complaint for expropriation against respondents Petrona O. Dilao et al. and Estefania Enriquez for parcels of land to implement its Leyte-Cebu Interconnection Project. NPC sought to expropriate 7,281 square meters of land co-owned by Dilao and her siblings, and 7,879 square meters of land owned by Enriquez. NPC filed an urgent ex parte motion for a writ of possession, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted. Dilao filed an Answer with Counterclaim, while Enriquez did not. The RTC appointed a Board of Commissioners to determine just compensation. Procedural History: The Commissioners recommended an appraisal of ₱516.66 per square meter for the Dilao property. NPC opposed this, arguing that for a right-of-way easement, compensation should be 10% of the market value per R.A. No. 6395. The RTC, in its decision, adopted the commissioners' recommendation and ordered NPC to pay ₱516.66 per square meter for the affected area of the Dilao property, plus compensation for improvements. NPC filed a Notice of Appeal, but the RTC denied it for failure to file a record on appeal within the reglementary period. NPC's motion for reconsideration and petition for relief were also denied. The RTC granted Dilao et al.'s motion for execution. NPC filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC's orders. The CA denied NPC's petition, holding that a record on appeal was required in expropriation cases due to the possibility of multiple or separate appeals. The Petition: NPC filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. NPC contended that an expropriation complaint is a Special Civil Action, not a special proceeding, and that no law specifically requires a record on appeal. It also argued that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over Enriquez, thus no appeal could arise from her case, negating the possibility of multiple appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a record on appeal is required in an expropriation case, considering the possibility of multiple appeals. Whether the trial court's denial of NPC's appeal was proper, and whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Estefania Enriquez. Whether the RTC's determination of just compensation was in accordance with law, particularly R.A. No. 6395, considering the nature of the easement and its impact on the landowners' rights.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals' decision affirming the RTC's dismissal of NPC's appeal is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requirement of a record on appeal in expropriation cases: The Court reiterated that while an expropriation complaint is not a special proceeding, Rule 41, Section 2(a) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires a record on appeal in "other cases of multiple or separate appeals." Jurisprudence recognizes that expropriation cases involve two stages: the determination of the right to expropriate and the determination of just compensation. Each stage can be the subject of a separate appeal. Therefore, expropriation cases fall under the classification of "other cases of multiple or separate appeal" where a record on appeal is necessary. The Court clarified that the RTC's denial of NPC's appeal was proper because it failed to file a record on appeal within the reglementary period. On the RTC's jurisdiction over Estefania Enriquez and the propriety of denying NPC's appeal: The Court found that the RTC did acquire jurisdiction over Enriquez, as evidenced by her letter-appeal manifesting no opposition to the expropriation but seeking payment based on actual market value. Even if Enriquez did not file an answer, Section 3 of Rule 67 allows a defendant to participate in the trial of just compensation and appeal the court's determination. Thus, the possibility of a separate appeal concerning Enriquez's property existed, reinforcing the requirement for a record on appeal. The Court clarified that the RTC's denial of NPC's appeal was proper because it failed to file a record on appeal within the reglementary period. On the substantive issue of just compensation: The Court found no reversible error in the RTC's determination of just compensation. It noted that while NPC argued for the 10% market value rule under R.A. No. 6395 for easements of right-of-way, the nature and effect of the transmission lines perpetually deprived the landowners of ordinary use and imposed dangers. The Court cited previous rulings emphasizing that the acquisition of a right-of-way easement falls within the power of eminent domain and can justify compensation beyond the 10% limit, especially when it significantly restricts the owner's proprietary rights. The commissioners' recommendation, adopted by the RTC, was deemed just and reasonable given the property's fertility, improvements, and the perpetual restriction imposed by the transmission lines.
Main Doctrine
In expropriation cases, where the order of condemnation and the subsequent adjudication on just compensation may be the subject of separate appeals, a record on appeal is required as it falls under 'other cases of multiple or separate appeals' under Rule 41, Section 2(a) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to file a record on appeal within the reglementary period warrants dismissal of the appeal.