NAPOCOR VS GUTIERREZ

NAPOCOR VS GUTIERREZ

FACTS:

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the National Power Corporation (NPC) seeking the reversal or modification of the March 9, 1986 Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the December 4, 1972 Decision of the then Court of First Instance of Pampang.

Plaintiff initiated negotiations for the acquisition of right of way easements over the aforementioned lots for the construction of its transmission lines but unsuccessful. Upon filing of the corresponding complaint, plaintiff corporation deposited the amount of P973.00 with the Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga, tendered to cover the provisional value of the land of the defendant spouses Ricardo Malit and Misericordia Gutierrez.

Meanwhile, for the purpose of determining the fair and just compensation due the defendants, the court appointed three commissioners, comprised of one representative of the plaintiff, one for the defendants and the other from the court, who then were empowered to receive evidence, conduct ocular inspection of the premises, and thereafter, prepare their appraisals as to the fair and just compensation to be paid to the owners of the lots. . The commissioner for the plaintiff corporation recommended the following:  that plaintiff be granted right of way easement over the 760 square meters of the defendants Malit and Gutierrez land for plaintiff transmission line upon payment of an easement fee of P1.00 therefor. The commissioner for the defendant spouses recommended the following:  that Mr. and Mrs. Ricardo Malit be paid as disturbance compensation the amount of P10.00 sq. meter or the total amount of P7,600.00. The Court's commissioner recommended the following: the payment of Five (P 5.OO) Pesos per square meter of the area covered by the Right-of-way to be granted.

The plaintiff corporation urged the Court that the assessment as recommended by their commissioner be the one adopted. Defendant spouses, however, dissented and objected to the price recommended by both the representative of the court and of the plaintiff corporation. The court rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, responsive to the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered ordering plaintiff National Power Corporation to pay defendant spouses Ricardo Malit and Misericordia Gutierrez the sum of P10.00 per square meter as the fair and reasonable compensation for the right-of-way easement of the affected area, which is 760 squares, or a total sum of P7,600.00 and P800.00 as attorney's fees'

Dissatisfied with the decision, the plaintiff corporation filed a motion for reconsideration which was favorably acted upon by the lower court, and in an order dated June 10, 1973, it amended its previous decision in the following tenor:

On the basis of an ocular inspection made personally by the undersigned, this court finally classified the land of the spouses Ricardo Malit and Misericordia to be partly commercial and partly agricultural, for which reason the amount of P10.00 per sq. meter awarded in the decision of December 4,1972 is hereby reduced to P5.00 per square meter as the fair and reasonable market value of the 760 square meters belonging to the said spouses.

There being no claim and evidence for attorney's fees, the amount of P800.00 awarded as attorney's fees, in the decision of December 4, 1972 is hereby reconsidered and set aside.

Still NPC not satisfied, an appeal was filed by petitioner (NPC) with the Court of Appeals but respondent Court of Appeals in its March 9, 1982, sustained the trial court,

ISSUE: WHETHER PETITIONER SHOULD BE MADE TO PAY SIMPLE EASEMENT FEE OR FULL COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND TRAVERSED BY ITS TRANSMISSION LINES.

RULING:

The petition is devoid of merit. The resolution of this case hinges on the determination of whether the acquisition of a mere right-of-way is an exercise of the power of eminent domain contemplated by law.

The trial court's observation shared by the appellate court show that ". . . While it is true that plaintiff are (sic) only after a right-of-way easement, it nevertheless perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as manifested by the imposition by the plaintiff upon defendants that below said transmission lines no plant higher than three (3) meters is allowed. Furthermore, because of the high-tension current conveyed through said transmission lines, danger to life and limbs that may be caused beneath said wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to cap it all plaintiff only pays the fee to defendants once, while the latter shall continually pay the taxes due on said affected portion of their property."

The foregoing facts considered, the acquisition of the right-of-way easement falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain.

Republic of the Philippines vs. PLDT: 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 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.

In the case at bar, the easement of right-of-way is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain. Considering the nature and effect of the installation of the 230 KV Mexico-Limay transmission lines, the limitation imposed by NPC against the use of the land for an indefinite period deprives private respondents of its ordinary use.

The above price refers to the market value of the land which may be the full market value thereof. According to private respondents, the market value of their lot is P50.00 per square meter because the said lot is adjacent to the National and super highways of Gapan, Nueva Ecija and Olongapo City.It finally consented to the expropriation of the said portion of their land, subject however to payment of just compensation. No matter how laudable NPC's purpose is, for which expropriation was sought, it is just and equitable that they be compensated the fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained, which is the measure of the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating entity.

It appearing that the trial court did not act capriciously and arbitrarily in setting the price of P5.00 per square meter of the affected property, the said award is proper and not unreasonable.Petitioner only sought an easement of right-of-way, and as earlier discussed, the power of eminent domain may be exercised although title was not transferred to the expropriator.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.