Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. MANUBAY AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 16 times or more.

	GR No. 192100 2014-03-12	REPUBLIC v. ASIA PACIFIC INTEGRATED STEEL CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation,[21] the recommended price of the city assessor was rejected by this Court. The opinions of the banks and the realtors as reflected in the computation of the market value of the property and in the Commissioners' Report, were not substantiated by any documentary evidence.
	GR No. 169957 2012-07-11	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. FLORIMON V. ILETO AND ROWENA NOLASCO BRION, J.
As we explained in National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation:[24]
	GR No. 165828 2011-08-24	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. MACABANGKIT BERSAMIN, J.
The action to recover just compensation from the State or its expropriating agency differs from the action for damages. The former, also known as inverse condemnation, has the objective to recover the value of property taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency.[26] Just compensation is 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 intensify the meaning of the word compensation in order to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample.[27] On the other hand, the latter action seeks to vindicate a legal wrong through damages, which may be actual, moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated, or exemplary. When a right is exercised in a manner not conformable with the norms enshrined in Article 19[28] and like provisions on human relations in the Civil Code, and the exercise results to the damage of another, a legal wrong is committed and the wrongdoer is held responsible.[29]
	GR No. 193023 2011-06-22	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. YUNITA TUAZON BRION, J.
The CA disagreed with the RTC. Citing National Power Corporation v. Hon. Sylvia G. Aguirre-Paderanga, etc., et al. [9] and National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, [10] the CA pointed out that the demolition of the improvements on the land, as well as the installation of transmission lines thereon, constituted "taking" under the power of eminent domain, considering that transmission lines are hazardous and restrictive of the land's use for an indefinite period of time. Hence, the CA held that the respondents were entitled, not just to an easement fee, but to just compensation based on the full market value of the respondents' land. Citing Export Processing Zone Authority v. Hon. Ceferino E. Dulay, etc., et al., [11] the CA maintained that NAPOCOR "cannot hide behind the mantle of Section 3-A(b) of R.A. 6395 as an excuse of dismissing the claim of appellants" since the determination of just compensation is a judicial function. "No statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings," [12] the CA added. The dispositive of the assailed decision reads: In sum, after establishing that NAPOCOR's acquisition of the right-of-way easement over the portion of the appellant's land was a definite taking under the power of eminent domain, NAPOCOR is liable to pay appellants [referring to the respondents herein] just compensation and not only easement fee.
	GR No. 170685 2010-09-22	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ENRIQUE LIVIOCO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Respondent's evidence of the value of his land as residential property (which the lower courts found to be preponderant) could, at most, refer to the potential use of the property. While the potential use of an expropriated property is sometimes considered in cases where there is a great improvement in the general vicinity of the expropriated property,[76] it should never control the determination of just compensation (which appears to be what the lower courts have erroneously done). The potential use of a property should not be the principal criterion for determining just compensation for this will be contrary to the well-settled doctrine that the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking, not its potential uses. If at all, the potential use of the property or its "adaptability for conversion in the future is a factor, not the ultimate in determining just compensation."[77]
	GR No. 183297 2009-12-23	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. OMAR G. MARUHOM NACHURA, J.
In Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[19] and National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation,[20] this Court sustained the award of just compensation equivalent to the fair and full value of the property even if petitioners only sought the continuation of the exercise of their right-of-way easement and not the ownership over the land. There is simply no basis for NPC to claim that the payment of fair market value without the concomitant transfer of title constitutes an unjust enrichment.
	GR No. 164964 2008-10-17	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. MARIA BAGUI TINGA, J.
In National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation[39] involving an easement of a right-of-way over a parcel of land that would be traversed by high-powered transmission lines, the Court held that the nature and effect of the installation of power lines and the limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period would deprive the owners of the normal use of their properties. Thus, just compensation must be based on the full market value of the affected properties.[40] This ruling was reiterated in NPC v. Bongbong[41] which also pertained to the acquisition of a simple right-of-way easement for the passage of overhead transmission lines.
	GR No. 175176 2008-10-17	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SANTA LORO VDA. DE CAPIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
After petitioner's transmission lines were fully constructed on portions of respondents' lots, petitioner imposed restrictions thereon such as the prohibition against planting or building anything higher than three meters below the area traversed by said lines. In addition, respondent-Spouses Quimco, holders of a Small Scale Quarry Permit, Series of 1995,[38] were also prohibited from continuing their quarry business near petitioner's transmission towers because of the great possibility that it could weaken the foundation thereof. Hence, the respondent-spouses Quimco suffered substantial loss of income. It is clear then that petitioner's acquisition of an easement of right of way on the lands of the respondents amounted to an expropriation of the portions of the latter's properties and perpetually deprived the respondents of their proprietary rights thereon and for which they are entitled to a reasonable and just compensation. Just compensation is 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 intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.[39]
	GR No. 175725 2008-10-08	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ANGEL SUAREZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
True, an easement of right of way transmits no rights except the easement itself, and respondent retains full ownership of the property. The acquisition of such easement is, nevertheless, not gratis. As correctly observed by the CA, considering the nature and the effect of the installation of power lines, the limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period would deprive respondent 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.[10] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied). Petitioner's assertion that respondents can still make use of the property by planting corn, rice, root crops and similar plants[11] 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.[12] 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.
	GR No. 160725 2008-09-12	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PUREFOODS CORPORATION TINGA, J,
The question of just compensation for an easement of right-of-way over a parcel of land that will be traversed by NAPOCOR's transmission lines has already been answered in National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation.[46] In that case, the Court held that because of the nature of the easement, which will deprive the normal use of the land for an indefinite period, just compensation must be based on the full market value of the affected properties. The Court explained, thus:Granting arguendo that what petitioner acquired over respondent's property was purely an easement of a right of way, still, we 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. This conclusion finds support in similar cases in which the Supreme Court sustained the award of just compensation for private property condemned for public use. Republic v. PLDT held thus:
	GR No. 164195 2007-12-19	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation[13] involving undeveloped, raw agricultural land, the court held that other factors should still be considered in the valuation of the property:The parcels of land sought to be expropriated are undeniably undeveloped, raw agricultural land. But a dominant portion thereof has been reclassified by the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Naga per Zoning Ordinance No. 94-076 dated August 10, 1994 as residential, per the August 8, 1996 certification of Zoning Administrator Juan O. Villegas, Jr. The property is also covered by Naga City Mayor Jesse M. Robredo's favorable endorsement of the issuance of a certification for land use conversion by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) on the ground that the locality where the property was located had become highly urbanized and would have greater economic value for residential or commercial use.
	GR NO. 166494 2007-06-29	CARLOS SUPERDRUG CORP. v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AZCUNA, J.
Just compensation is 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 intensify the meaning of the word compensation, and to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.[18]
	GR NO. 160656 2007-06-15	REPUBLIC v. ISMAEL ANDAYA QUISUMBING, J.
For this reason, in our view, Andaya is entitled to payment of just compensation, which must be neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent of the land.[13] One of the basic principles enshrined in our Constitution is that no person shall be deprived of his private property without due process of law; and in expropriation cases, an essential element of due process is that there must be just compensation whenever private property is taken for public use. Noteworthy, Section 9, Article III of our Constitution mandates that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.[14]
	GR NO. 164079 2007-04-03	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. DR. ANTERO BONGBONG CALLEJO, SR., J.
Just compensation is the fair value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. This rule holds true when the property is taken before the filing of an expropriation suit, and even if it is the property owner who brings the action for compensation.[43] The nature and character of the land at the time of its taking is the principal criterion for determining how much just compensation should be given to the landowner.[44] In determining just compensation, all the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities, should be considered.[45]
	GR NO. 170945 2006-09-26	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SAN PEDRO CALLEJO, SR., J.
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FIXING P800.00 AND P499.00 PER SQUARE METER AS JUST COMPENSATION FOR APPELLEE'S 6,565 SQUARE METERS OF RESIDENTIAL LAND AND 17,195 SQUARE METERS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, RESPECTIVELY.[29] On September 28, 2005, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the appeal. The CA ruled that the July 12, 1999 majority report was based on uncontroverted facts, supported by documentary evidence and confirmed by the commissioners' ocular inspection of the subject properties. To arrive at a reasonable estimate of just compensation, the commissioners considered factors such as the location, the most profitable likely use of the remaining area, size, shape, accessibility, as well as listings of other properties within the vicinity. Citing National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation,[30] the CA found as unpersuasive NPC's argument that it should only pay an easement fee. It ruled that considering the nature and effect of the installation of power lines, the limitations on the use of land for an indefinite period deprives the owner of its normal use. The fallo of the CA decision reads:
	GR NO. 170945 2006-09-26	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SAN PEDRO CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is violative of due process to deny to the owner the opportunity to prove that the valuation in the tax documents is unfair or wrong. And it is repulsive to basic concepts of justice and fairness to allow the haphazard work of a minor bureaucrat or clerk to absolutely prevail over the judgment of a court promulgated only after expert commissioners have actually viewed the property, after evidence and arguments pro and con have been presented, and after all factors and considerations essential to a fair and just determination have been judiciously evaluated.[48] Conformably with the rulings of this Court, the majority report took into account the most profitable likely use of the remaining area; and the size, shape, accessibility, as well as listings of other properties within the vicinity.[49]