National Power Corporation v. Libunao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The National Power Corporation (NPC) filed an action for Eminent Domain to expropriate two parcels of land: Lot No. 1277-A-3-A registered in the name of Spouses Ruperto Libunao and Sonia P. Sanopo, and a portion of Lot No. 1236 registered in the name of the Heirs of Benita Domingo. The purpose was to construct and maintain its Cabanatuan-Talavera 69 KV Transmission Line Project, requiring an easement of right-of-way. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a writ of possession, placing NPC in possession of the properties. Various appraisal committees and commissioners were formed to determine the fair market value. The RTC, considering the reports, rendered a decision upholding NPC's right to expropriate and ordering NPC to pay Spouses Libunao P1,500.00 per square meter and the Heirs of Domingo P600.00 per square meter, with legal interest from the date of taking. Both NPC and the Heirs of Domingo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA modified the RTC Decision, fixing the just compensation at P700.00 per square meter for residential land and P460.00 per square meter for agricultural land, and deleted the costs of suit. NPC filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The Petition: NPC filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the CA's decision on two grounds: (a) that expropriation should cover only an easement fee for the right-of-way, not the entire area, as the transmission lines would not render the land inutile; and (b) that the CA erred in requiring NPC to pay interest from the date of taking until full payment.
Issue(s)
Whether the expropriation should cover the entire area of the respondents' properties or only an easement fee. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in requiring the petitioner to pay interests reckoned from the date of taking until full payment of the whole property.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 30, 2004 and the Resolution dated January 3, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 70582 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the expropriation should cover the entire area of the respondents' properties or only an easement fee: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that just compensation should be based on the full market value of the affected properties, not merely an easement fee. The Court reiterated its ruling in National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, holding that the nature and effect of installing power lines, along with the limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period, deprive owners of the normal use of their properties and expose them to danger. Therefore, property owners are entitled to the payment of just compensation equivalent to the full market value of the affected properties, as the acquisition of such an easement falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain. The Court also noted that NPC's complaint sought authority to take possession and control, and to demolish improvements, and that NPC had already taken possession and demolished existing improvements, further supporting the conclusion that the expropriation was not limited to a mere easement of right-of-way. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in requiring the petitioner to pay interests reckoned from the date of taking until full payment of the whole property: The Court found no merit in NPC's claim and affirmed the CA's decision to award legal interest. Section 10, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that upon payment of the compensation fixed by the judgment, with legal interest from the taking of possession, the plaintiff shall have the right to enter upon the property. Therefore, respondents are entitled to the payment of legal interest on the compensation for the subject lands from the time of taking of their possession up to the time that full payment is made by petitioner. The Court reiterated that the legal interest allowed in the payment of just compensation for lands expropriated for public use is six percent (6%) per annum.
Main Doctrine
In expropriation proceedings for the construction of transmission lines, the property owner is entitled to just compensation based on the full market value of the affected properties, not merely an easement fee, due to the nature and effect of the installation and the limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period, which deprives the owner of the normal use of their properties and exposes them to danger.