Lawyerly

GR No. 203039

2013-09-11

CARPIO, J.

Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property sought to be expropriated.[46] The general rule is that the just compensation to which the owner of the condemned property is entitled to is the market value.[47] Market value is that 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 a price to be paid by the buyer and received by the seller. The general rule, however, is modified where only a part of a certain property is expropriated.[48] In such a case, the owner is not restricted to compensation for the portion actually taken, he is also entitled to recover the consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property.[49]

GR Nos. 154211-12

2009-06-22

SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

VELASCO JR., J.

Fair market value, as an eminent domain concept, is determined by, among other factors, the character of the property at the time of the taking of the property.[134] It is basic that the nature and character of the land at the time of the taking is the principal criterion for determining how much just compensation is to be given to the lot owner,[135] not the potential of the expropriated area.[136] With these principles in mind, it is clear that the fact that the subject lots would eventually be developed as an integral part of the BPZ and consequently devoted to industrial use is of little moment for purposes of determining just compensation. And the adaptability for conversion in the future of the lots found within the BPZ is a factor, but not the ultimate in determining just compensation.

GR No. 166973

2009-02-10

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN ONG CO

TINGA, J.

Eminent domain "is the inherent power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular use to promote public welfare."[14] In the exercise of its power of eminent domain, just compensation must be given to the property owner to satisfy the requirements of Sec. 9, Art. III[15] of the Constitution. Just compensation is the fair market value of the property.[16] Fair market value is that "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 a price to be given and received therefor."[17] Judicial determination is needed to arrive at the exact amount due to the property owner.

GR No. 167809

2008-11-27

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO

REYES, R.T., J.

The "taking" of the properties for the purpose of computing just compensation should be reckoned from the date of issuance of emancipation patents, and not on October 21, 1972, as petitioner insists. The nature of the land at that time determines the just compensation to be paid.[81]

GR No. 160725

2008-09-12

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PUREFOODS CORPORATION

TINGA, J,

The Court explained therein that expropriation is not limited to the acquisition of real property with a corresponding transfer of title or possession. The right-of-way easement resulting in a restriction or limitation on property rights over the land traversed by transmission lines, as in the present case, also falls within the ambit of the term "expropriation."[49] In eminent domain or expropriation proceedings, the general rule is that the just compensation to which the owner of the condemned property is entitled is the market value. Market value is "that 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 a price to be given and received therefor. The aforementioned rule, however, is modified where only a part of a certain property is expropriated. In such a case the owner is not restricted to compensation for the portion actually taken. In addition to the market value of the portion taken, he is also entitled to recover the consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property. At the same time, from the total compensation must be deducted the value of the consequential benefits."[50]

GR No. 160725

2008-09-12

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PUREFOODS CORPORATION

TINGA, J,

The duty of the court in considering the commissioners' report is to satisfy itself that just compensation will be made to the defendant by its final judgment in the matter, and to fulfill its duty in this respect, the court will be obliged to exercise its discretion in dealing with the report as the particular circumstances of the case may require. Rule 67, Section 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly shows that the trial court has the discretion to act upon the commissioners' report in any of the following ways: (1) it may accept the same and render judgment therewith; or (2) for cause shown, it may [a] recommit the report to the commissioners for further report of facts; or [b] set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or [c] accept the report in part and reject it in part; and it may make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his right of expropriation, and to the defendant just compensation for the property so taken.[55]

GR No. 170846

2007-02-06

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. AURELLANO S. TIANGCO

GARCIA, J.

Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. In this case, this simply means the property's fair market value at the time of the filing of the complaint, or "that 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 a price to be given and received therefor."[14] The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss.

GR No. 170846

2007-02-06

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. AURELLANO S. TIANGCO

GARCIA, J.

In the determination of such value, the court is not limited to the assessed value of the property or to the schedule of market values determined by the provincial or city appraisal committee; these values consist but one factor in the judicial valuation of the property.[15] 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[16] All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, as well as its improvements and capabilities, should be considered.[17]

GR No. 160890

2004-11-10

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

In eminent domain or expropriation proceedings, the general rule is that the just compensation which the owner of condemned property is entitled to is the market value. Market value is "that 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 a price to be given and received therefor."[16]

GR No. 150936

2004-08-18

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. MANUBAY AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PANGANIBAN, J.

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.[13] Republic v. PLDT[14] held thus:"x x x. Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why the said power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of title and possession. It is unquestionable that real property may, through expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right of way."[15]

	GR No. 203039 2013-09-11	REPUBLIC v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CARPIO, J.
Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property sought to be expropriated.[46] The general rule is that the just compensation to which the owner of the condemned property is entitled to is the market value.[47] Market value is that 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 a price to be paid by the buyer and received by the seller. The general rule, however, is modified where only a part of a certain property is expropriated.[48] In such a case, the owner is not restricted to compensation for the portion actually taken, he is also entitled to recover the consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property.[49]
	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
Fair market value, as an eminent domain concept, is determined by, among other factors, the character of the property at the time of the taking of the property.[134] It is basic that the nature and character of the land at the time of the taking is the principal criterion for determining how much just compensation is to be given to the lot owner,[135] not the potential of the expropriated area.[136] With these principles in mind, it is clear that the fact that the subject lots would eventually be developed as an integral part of the BPZ and consequently devoted to industrial use is of little moment for purposes of determining just compensation. And the adaptability for conversion in the future of the lots found within the BPZ is a factor, but not the ultimate in determining just compensation.
	GR No. 166973 2009-02-10	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN ONG CO TINGA, J.
Eminent domain "is the inherent power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular use to promote public welfare."[14] In the exercise of its power of eminent domain, just compensation must be given to the property owner to satisfy the requirements of Sec. 9, Art. III[15] of the Constitution. Just compensation is the fair market value of the property.[16] Fair market value is that "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 a price to be given and received therefor."[17] Judicial determination is needed to arrive at the exact amount due to the property owner.
	GR No. 167809 2008-11-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO REYES, R.T., J.
The "taking" of the properties for the purpose of computing just compensation should be reckoned from the date of issuance of emancipation patents, and not on October 21, 1972, as petitioner insists. The nature of the land at that time determines the just compensation to be paid.[81]
	GR No. 160725 2008-09-12	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PUREFOODS CORPORATION TINGA, J,
The Court explained therein that expropriation is not limited to the acquisition of real property with a corresponding transfer of title or possession. The right-of-way easement resulting in a restriction or limitation on property rights over the land traversed by transmission lines, as in the present case, also falls within the ambit of the term "expropriation."[49] In eminent domain or expropriation proceedings, the general rule is that the just compensation to which the owner of the condemned property is entitled is the market value. Market value is "that 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 a price to be given and received therefor. The aforementioned rule, however, is modified where only a part of a certain property is expropriated. In such a case the owner is not restricted to compensation for the portion actually taken. In addition to the market value of the portion taken, he is also entitled to recover the consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property. At the same time, from the total compensation must be deducted the value of the consequential benefits."[50]
	GR No. 160725 2008-09-12	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PUREFOODS CORPORATION TINGA, J,
The duty of the court in considering the commissioners' report is to satisfy itself that just compensation will be made to the defendant by its final judgment in the matter, and to fulfill its duty in this respect, the court will be obliged to exercise its discretion in dealing with the report as the particular circumstances of the case may require. Rule 67, Section 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly shows that the trial court has the discretion to act upon the commissioners' report in any of the following ways: (1) it may accept the same and render judgment therewith; or (2) for cause shown, it may [a] recommit the report to the commissioners for further report of facts; or [b] set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or [c] accept the report in part and reject it in part; and it may make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his right of expropriation, and to the defendant just compensation for the property so taken.[55]
	GR No. 170846 2007-02-06	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. AURELLANO S. TIANGCO GARCIA, J.
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. In this case, this simply means the property's fair market value at the time of the filing of the complaint, or "that 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 a price to be given and received therefor."[14] The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss.
	GR No. 170846 2007-02-06	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. AURELLANO S. TIANGCO GARCIA, J.
In the determination of such value, the court is not limited to the assessed value of the property or to the schedule of market values determined by the provincial or city appraisal committee; these values consist but one factor in the judicial valuation of the property.[15] 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[16] All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, as well as its improvements and capabilities, should be considered.[17]
	GR No. 160890 2004-11-10	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In eminent domain or expropriation proceedings, the general rule is that the just compensation which the owner of condemned property is entitled to is the market value. Market value is "that 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 a price to be given and received therefor."[16]
	GR No. 150936 2004-08-18	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. MANUBAY AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
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.[13] Republic v. PLDT[14] held thus:"x x x. Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why the said power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of title and possession. It is unquestionable that real property may, through expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right of way."[15]

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. IGMEDIO AND LIWAYWAY CHIONG AND HEIRS OF AGRIFINA ANGELES