National Power Corporation v. Suarez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC) filed a complaint for expropriation to acquire an easement of right of way (aerial) over a parcel of land registered in the names of respondents Angel, Carlos, Maria Theresa, and Rosario Suarez. NPC deposited ₱7,465.71 as provisional value and obtained a Writ of Possession. Respondents alleged the property was larger than stated by NPC and that NPC had constructed two transmission towers, cut down numerous trees (including fruit-bearing coconut trees), and removed hardwood and softwood trees. They moved for the determination of just compensation. Procedural History: The Commissioners appointed by the RTC determined the just compensation to be ₱783,860.46, considering market data analysis, income productivity, and zonal valuation, with emphasis on the property's potential for residential subdivision development. The RTC adopted this amount as just compensation for the entire 24,350 sq.m. taken for the easement, ordering NPC to pay the respondents the determined amount less the provisional value deposited and other sums due the government. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The Petition: NPC filed a Petition for Review, contending that it should only pay an easement fee, not the full value of the property, and sought the application of Section 3A(b) of RA 6395, which directs payment of 10% of the market value for an easement of right of way.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner, in acquiring an easement of right of way, is only liable to pay a fee and not the full value of the land. Whether Section 3A(b) of RA 6395 applies to the acquisition of an aerial easement of right of way by NPC.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, holding that NPC is liable to pay the full value of the property as just compensation for the easement of right of way acquired.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of just compensation for an easement of right of way: Granting arguendo that what petitioner acquired was purely an easement of a right of way, the Court 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. The Supreme Court has sustained the award of just compensation for private property condemned for public use in similar cases. While an easement of right of way transmits no rights except the easement itself and the respondent retains full ownership of the property, the acquisition is not gratis. Considering the nature and effect of the installation of power lines, the limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period would deprive respondents 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. Petitioner's assertion that respondents can still make use of the property by planting corn, rice, root crops and similar plants fails to consider that the property was originally tilled and suited for, as reflected in the Commissioners’ Report, 234 fruit bearing coconut trees, 617 abaca plants, 50 madre de cacao and 23 jackfruit trees. That petitioner prohibited respondents from planting trees higher than three meters clearly shows that the easement had impaired respondents’ beneficial enjoyment of their property to warrant the imposition of payment of its full value. The measure is thus not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" and to thereby convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. The nature, as well as the character of the land at the time of taking is thus the principal criterion in determining just compensation. All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, as well as its improvements and capabilities, must thus be considered. On the applicability of Section 3A(b) of RA 6395: Petitioner's plea for the application of Section 3A(b) of RA 6395, which directs the payment of an amount equivalent to only 10% of the market value of the property as just compensation for an easement of right of way, does not lie. The Court found that the acquisition of the easement of right of way in this case, due to its nature and effect on the property's beneficial use, warrants compensation equivalent to the full value of the land, not merely 10% thereof as stipulated in the cited provision.
Main Doctrine
Even if only an easement of right of way is acquired, the owner is entitled to just compensation equivalent to the full value of the property if the easement deprives the owner of the normal use and beneficial enjoyment of the land.