G.R. No. 191945
March 11, 2015
NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
SOCORRO T. POSADA, RENATO BUENO, ALICE BALIN, ADRIAN TABLIZO, TEOFILO TABLIZO,
and LYDIA T. OLIVO, substituted by her heirs, ALFREDO M. OLIVO, ALICIA O.
SALAZAR, ANITA O. ORDONO, ANGELITA O. LIM, AND ADELFA O. ESPINAS, Respondents.
FACTS
NAPOCOR instituted
expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of a right-of-way easement over
parcels of land owned by respondents. The expropriation was for the
construction and maintenance of its Substation Island Grid Project. NAPOCOR
offered the price of ₱500.00 per square meter. Respondents objected to the
offer and alleged that the value of the properties was ₱2,000.00 per square
meter
RTC confirmed NAPOCOR’s
right to expropriate the properties and ordered the creation of a commission to
determine the amount of just compensation to be paid to respondents. Then, NAPOCOR
filed a Notice to Take Possession based on Rule 67, Section 2 of the Rules
of Court. It alleged that it was entitled to a Writ of Possession in view of
its deposit with the Land Bank of the Philippines in the amount of ₱3,280.00,
alleging that it represented the provisional value of the properties. The court-appointed
commissioners recommended a fair market value of ₱1,500.00 per square meter but
NPC opposed their recommendation.
The RTC granted an Urgent
Ex Parte Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession filed by NAPOCOR. It
also granted respondents’ Urgent Motion to Grant Defendants Time to Remove
their Houses and Improvements as well as Additional Deposit for Use in Land
Acquisition and Expenses for Transfer of their Respective Residential Houses. RTC
ordered NAPOCOR to deposit an additional amount which was the difference
between value of structures and improvements determined by the trial court and
the amount initially deposited by NAPOCOR.
However, NAPOCOR failed
to deposit the additional amount. RTCT issued an Order for NAPOCOR to make the
necessary deposit. The issue on the amount of just compensation was also
submitted for decision. NAPOCOR appealed to the Court of Appeals but it was denied.
In a turn of events, NAPOCOR
informed its counsel that it no longer needed the properties as it was set to
acquire an alternative site. It also requested its counsel to withdraw the
case before the trial court because "it was impractical to pursue the
acquisition of the original site.".
ISSUE
Whether NAPOCOR may be
allowed to withdraw its Petition for Review
RULING
Yes. The court granted
NAPOCOR’S motion to withdraw the petition for review.
Expropriation proceedings
for national infrastructure projects are governed by Rule 67 of the Rules of
Court and Republic Act No. 8974.
The power of eminent
domain is an inherent competence of the state. It is essential to a sovereign.
Thus, the Constitution does not explicitly define this power but subjects it to
a limitation: that it be exercised only for public use and with payment of just
compensation. Whether the use is public or whether the compensation is
constitutionally just will be determined finally by the courts.
Expropriation, the
procedure by which the government takes possession of private property, is
outlined primarily in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. It undergoes two phases.
The first phase determines the propriety of the action. The second phase
determines the compensation to be paid to the landowner. Thus:
There are two (2) stages
in every action for expropriation. The first is concerned with the determination
of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain
and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved
in the suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, "of
condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the
property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the
complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date
of the filing of the complaint." An order of dismissal, if this be
ordained, would be a final one, of course, since it finally disposes of the
action and leaves nothing more to be done by the Court on the merits. So, too,
would an order of condemnation be a final one, for thereafter, as the Rules
expressly state, in the proceedings before the Trial Court, "no objection
to the exercise of the right of condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall
be filed or heard.".
The second phase
of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the Court
of "the just compensation for the property sought to be taken."
This is done by the Court with the assistance of not more than 3 commissioners.
The order fixing the just compensation based on the evidence before, and
findings of, the commissioners would be final, too. It would finally dispose of
the second stage of the suit and leave nothing more to be done by the Court
regarding the issue. Obviously, one or another of the parties may believe the
order to be erroneous in its appreciation of the evidence or findings of fact
or otherwise. Obviously, too, such a dissatisfied party may seek a reversal of
the order by taking an appeal therefrom.
As stated in Gingoyon,
Republic Act No. 8974 "provides for a procedure eminently more
favorable to the property owner than Rule 67" since it requires
the immediate payment of the zonal value and the value of the improvements on
the land to the property owner before the trial court can allow the government
to take possession. In contrast, Rule 67 only requires the government to
deposit the assessed value of the property for it to enter and take possession.
The purpose for the
taking of private property was for the construction of NAPOCOR’s Substation
Island Grid Project. According to the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act No. 8974, projects related to "power generation, transmission
and distribution" are national infrastructure projects covered by the
law. NAPOCOR must first comply with the guidelines stated in Republic Act No.
8974 before it can take possession of respondents’ property.
RTC committed two errors.
First, it based the value of the improvements on the property on the
determination made by the commissioners, and not on the determination made by NAPOCOR,
contrary to the requirements of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8974. According
to the law, it is the implementing agency, not the commissioners, that
determines the proffered value of the improvements and structures. A Writ of
Possession may be issued once there is confirmation by the trial court of the
proffered value.
The second error of the
trial court occurred when it issued a Writ of Possession based on NAPOCOR’s
deposit of the alleged provisional value with Land Bank of the Philippines, not
on its actual payment to respondents. Even if the deposit was the correct
provisional value, it cannot be considered as compliance with Section 4 of
Republic Act No. 8974.
No comments:
Post a Comment