This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-01-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Having said that, we must point out that NAPOCOR entered the property without the owners' consent and without paying just compensation to the respondents. Neither did it deposit any amount as required by law prior to its entry. The Constitution is explicit in obliging the Government and its entities to pay just compensation before depriving any person of his or her property for public use.[52] Considering that in the process of installing transmission lines, NAPOCOR destroyed some fruit trees and plants without payment, and the installation of the transmission lines went through the middle of the land as to divide the property into three lots, thereby effectively rendering the entire property inutile for any future use, it would be unfair for NAPOCOR not to be made liable to the respondents for the disturbance of their property rights from the time of entry until the time of restoration of the possession of the property. There should be no question about the taking. In several rulings, notably National Power Corporation v. Zabala,[53] Republic v. Libunao,[54] National Power Corporation v. Tuazon,[55] and National Power Corporation v. Saludares,[56] this Court has already declared that "since the high-tension electric current passing through the transmission lines will perpetually deprive the property owners of the normal use of their land, it is only just and proper to require Napocor to recompense them for the full market value of their property." | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Even without the reservation made by Jesus Cabahug in the Grant of Right of Way, the application of Gutierrez to this case is not improper as NPC represents it to be. Where the right of way easement, as in this case, similarly involves transmission lines which not only endangers life and limb but restricts as well the owner's use of the land traversed thereby, the ruling in Gutierrez remains doctrinal and should be applied.[25] It has been ruled that the owner should be compensated for the monetary equivalent of the land if, as here, 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.[26] Measured not by the taker's gain but the owner's loss, just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator.[27] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Just compensation has been defined as "the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word 'just' is used to [qualify] the meaning of the word 'compensation' and to convey thereby the idea that the [amount] to be [t]endered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample."[13] The payment of just compensation for private property taken for public use is guaranteed no less by our Constitution and is included in the Bill of Rights.[14] As such, no legislative enactments or executive issuances can prevent the courts from determining whether the right of the property owners to just compensation has been violated. It is a judicial function that cannot "be usurped by any other branch or official of the government."[15] Thus, we have consistently ruled that statutes and executive issuances fixing or providing for the method of computing just compensation are not binding on courts and, at best, are treated as mere guidelines in ascertaining the amount thereof.[16] In National Power Corporation v. Bagui,[17] where the same petitioner also invoked the provisions of Section 3A of RA No. 6395, we held that: Moreover, Section 3A-(b) of R.A. No. 6395, as amended, is not binding on the Court. It has been repeatedly emphasized that the determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function and that any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes may serve only as a guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation but it may not substitute the court's own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount.[18] This ruling was reiterated in Republic v. Lubinao,[19] National Power Corporation v. Tuazon[20] and National Power Corporation v. Saludares[21] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. Notably, in all these cases, Napocor likewise argued that it is liable to pay the property owners for the easement of right-of-way only and not the full market value of the land traversed by its transmission lines. But we uniformly held in those cases that since the high-tension electric current passing through the transmission lines will perpetually deprive the property owners of the normal use of their land, it is only just and proper to require Napocor to recompense them for the full market value of their property. | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, Section 3A-(b) of R.A. No. 6395, as amended, is not binding on the Court. It has been repeatedly emphasized that the determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function and that any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes may serve only as a guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation but it may not substitute the court's own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount.[18] This ruling was reiterated in Republic v. Lubinao,[19] National Power Corporation v. Tuazon[20] and National Power Corporation v. Saludares[21] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. Notably, in all these cases, Napocor likewise argued that it is liable to pay the property owners for the easement of right-of-way only and not the full market value of the land traversed by its transmission lines. But we uniformly held in those cases that since the high-tension electric current passing through the transmission lines will perpetually deprive the property owners of the normal use of their land, it is only just and proper to require Napocor to recompense them for the full market value of their property. | |||||
|
2012-07-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We also declared in National Power Corporation v. Purefoods Corporation[27]that Section 3A of Republic Act No. 6395, as amended (which provides a fixed formula in the computation of just compensation in cases of acquisition of easements of right of way) is not binding upon this Court. This is in keeping with the established rule that the determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function.[28] | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, we have ruled that Section 3A of R.A. No. 6395, as amended, is not binding upon this Court.[39] "[T]he determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function and . . . any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes may serve only as a guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation but it may not substitute the court's own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount."[40] | |||||