FACTS:
The National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) is the transferee-in-interest of the NPC—a government entity created to undertake the development of hydroelectric generation of power and production of electricity from any and all sources. To carry out its purpose, NPC was given authority by Republic Act No. (RA) 6395 to enter and acquire private properties.
To enable it to construct and maintain its Tayabas-Dasmariñas 500 KV Transmission Line Project, the NPC, on November 24, 1995, filed before the RTC a Complaint for Eminent Domain against the spouses Mariano and Corazon Taglao (Spouses Taglao). The Spouses Taglao are the owners of a parcel of land covering an area of 5,143 square meters situated at San Pioquinto, Malvar, Batangas. The NPC sought to acquire an easement of right of way over the 3,573 sq.m portion (subject portion) of Spouses Taglao’s property.
Spouses Taglao moved to dismiss the eminent domain case filed by the NPC. Meanwhile, the NPC filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession over the subject property. The motion to dismiss was denied, and granted the NPC’s Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession over the subject portion of Spouses Taglao’s property, and thereafter declared as condemned the subject property.
The RTC fixed the market value of the property at Php 1,000.00 per square meter.
Aggrieved, the NPC appealed before the CA. The CA then denied NPC’s appeal and affirmed in toto the RTC’s ruling.
RULING:
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. It is the 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 price to be given and received therefor. The measure is not the taker’s gain, but the owner’s loss.
While market value may be one of the basis in the determination of just compensation, the same cannot be arbitrarily arrived at without considering the factors to be appreciated in arriving at the fair market value of the property, e.g., the cost of acquisition, the current value of like properties, its size, shape, location, as well as the tax declarations thereon. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that just compensation should be computed based on fair market value of the property at the time of its taking or the filing of the complaint, whichever comes first.
Here, the action for eminent domain was filed by the NPC on November 24, 1995. By virtue of the writ issued in favor of the NPC, it took possession of the subject property on October 9, 1996. Since the filing of the Complaint for Eminent Domain came ahead of the taking, just compensation should be based on fair market value of Spouses Taglao’s property at the time of the filing of the NPC’s Complaint on November 24, 1995.
In this case, the valuation recommended by the commissioner for the NPC was Php 13.607 per square meter. The valuation was based on the market value stated on the property’s Tax Declaration for December 29, 1993. The commissioner for Spouses Taglao, on the other hand, recommended a valuation of Php 2,500.00 per square meter. This amount was in turn based on the market value of the property as of August 15, 2000.
The Supreme Court stated that it cannot uphold the valuations made by the respective commissioners as they were not based on the market value of the property at the time of the filing of NPC’s complaint for eminent domain on November 24, 1995. The market value of the subject property could have been different on 1993 and in 2000. Moreover, the valuation of the commissioner for the NPS was arrived at by considering only the property’s tax declaration, without taking into account other relevant factors, such as the property’s cost acquisition, the value of like properties in 1995, its size, share, and location.
A simple reading of the CA’s Decision would signify that its conclusion was highly speculative and devoid of any actual and reliable basis. Although the determination of just compensation indeed lies within the trial court’s discretion, it should not be done arbitrarily or capriciously. The valuation of courts must be base on all established rules, correct legal principles, and competent evidence. The courts are proscribed from basing their judgments on speculations and surmises. The findings of both the RTC and the CA not being based on well grounded data, it is incumbent upon the Court to disregard them.
 |
| photo from web |
Citing the case of National Power Corporation v. Tiangco, the Court in National Power Corporation v. Sps. Asoque elucidated:
While the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of the expropriated property, no cogent reason appears why said power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of the condemned property, without loss of title and possession. However, if the easement is intended to perpetually or indefinitely deprive the owner of his proprietary rights through the imposition of conditions that affect the ordinary use, free enjoyment and disposal of the property or through restrictions and limitations that are inconsistent with the exercise of the attributes of ownership, or when the introduction of structures or objects, which, by their nature, create or increase the probability of injury, death upon or destruction of life and property found on the land is necessary, then the owner should be compensated for the monetary equivalent of the land, x x x.
In this case, the TRANSCO needed to acquire easement on the subject property to enable it to construct and maintain its Tayabas-Dasmariñas 500 KV Transmission Line Project. Certainly the high-tension current to be conveyed through said transmission lines poses danger to life and limb; or possible injury, death or destruction to life and property within the vicinity. Considering that the installation of the power lines would definitely deprive Spouses Taglao of the normal use of their property, they are entitled to the payment of a just compensation, which is neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent of the subject property.
In view of the foregoing, the computation by the RTC of the just compensation should be done using the following formula:
Just Compensation = Total Market Value x Area Affected
Total Area
The subject property’s market value should be fixed by the RTC taking into consideration the cost of acquisition of the land involved, the current value of like properties, its size, shape, location, as well as the tax declarations thereon, at the time of the filing of the NPC’s complaint.
In light of the foregoing, the Court sets aside the Decision and the Resolution of the CA. The Court has not alternative but to remand the case to the court of origin for the proper determination of the just compensation.
No comments:
Post a Comment