Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. SPS. RUPERTO LIBUNAO AND SONIA P. SANOPO AND HEIRS OF BENITA DOMINGO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 165354 2015-01-12	REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF SATURNINO Q. BORBON 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."
	GR No. 186069 2013-01-30	SPS. JESUS L. CABAHUG AND CORONACION M. CABAHUG v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
Too, the CA reversibly erred in sustaining NPC's reliance on Section 3-A of RA 6395 which states that only 10% of the market value of the property is due to the owner of the property subject to an easement of right of way. Since said easement falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain, NPC's utilization of said provision has been repeatedly struck down by this Court in a number of cases.[28] The determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is a judicial function and no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings.[29] 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.[30] Hence, Section 3A of R.A. No. 6395, as amended, is not binding upon this Court.[31]
	GR No. 173520 2013-01-30	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. RODOLFO ZABALA AND LILIA BAYLON 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.
	GR No. 180979 2010-12-15	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. TERESITA DIATO-BERNAL NACHURA, 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 thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample.[26] Indeed, the "just"-ness of the compensation can only be attained by using reliable and actual data as bases in fixing the value of the condemned property.