Paje

CASE TITLE: NPC vs Posada

G.R. NUMBER & DATE: G.R. No. 191945, March 11, 2015

NATURE OF CASE: Just compensation

DOCTRINE/PRINCIPLE: Eminent Domain

PETITIONERS: National Power Corporation (NPC)

RESPONDENTS: Socorro T. Posada, Renato Bueno, Alice Balin, Adrian Tablizo, Teofilo Tablizo, and
Lydia Tablizo (owners of the parcel of land in Brgy Marinawa, Bato, Catanduanes)

Facts:

NPC filed a notice to take possession for right of way easements over parcels of land owned by the
respondents. NPC was to build a Substation Island Grid Project (a national infrastructure project
related to power generation, transmission and distribution ) in the area, and offered to pay Php 500 per
suare meter as just compensation. Respondents opposed, saying the value of the properties in Php
2,000 per sqm. NPC claimed it was entitled to a writ of possession after having deposited Php 3, 280
with the Land Bank in representation of the provisional value of the portions they needed.

In 2003, court appointed commissioners recommended a fair market value of Php 1,500 psm based on
the location of the subject parcels of land along the highway, the prevailing market value range (Php
1,500-2000) and in consideration that residents would have to relocate. NPC amended its complaint
stating that it needed to acquire portions of the properties and thereafter deposited Php 580, 769.93
with the LBP saying that it represented the value of the 3,954 sqm properties it wanted to be
expropriated. NPC filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a writ of possession and issued to
respondents a notice to take possession (informing the residents that they will enter the property) which
the RTC granted.

Respondents filed a motion to lift the issuance was filed but was denied. Respondents then filed an
“Urgent Motion to Grant Defendants Time to Remove their Houses and Improvements as well as
Additional Deposit for Use in Land Acquisition and Expenses for Transfer of their Respective
Residential Houses.” The Court granted the petition and ordered the National Power Corporation to
deposit an additional amount of P262,639.17, the court having considered the improvements in the
structures.

The court cancelled the writ of possession on the basis that NPC failed to pay the said amount and for
misleading the court in filing the motion for the issuance of the writ. At the same time, the court fixed
the value of the properties at Php 2,000 psm, representing only the value of the structures on the
property and not the value of the land, which is based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the
BIR. NPC filed an appeal with the CA but was denied. Subsequently, it filed an MFR which was also
denied. NPC then filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a TRO of the present review for certoriari,
stating that it wanted to withdraw its interest in the property, and later issued a very urgent motion to
resolve such stating that "the delay in the possession of the subject properties — intended for the
Marinawa 10 MVA Sub-Station Project — would adversely affect the implementation of the Codon-
Virac Transmission Lines” Thereafter, NPC decided to withdraw all interest in the property, including its
appeal and its amended complaint before the trial court, through a Motion to Withdraw Petition. SC
granted the petition, reasoning that since NPC is no longer using respondents' properties for the
purpose of building the Substation Project, it may be allowed to discontinue with the expropriation
proceedings, subject to the approval of the court.

Petitioner’s Arguments: The deposited value of P580,769.93, the provisional amount required by
Republic Act No. 8974 is enough to eb granted a writ of possession; that the amount of Php 2000 was
excessive since the BIR valuation is much less and the commissioners merely engaged in guesswork.

Respondent's Arguments: The provisional value paid by NPC is insufficient. Note: respondents asked
for Php 2,000 psm was granted before NPC withdrew all interest in the properties.

ISSUES:
A. W/N payment of the provisional value is sufficient for just compensation.
B. W/N the valuation of the NPC should be followed
C. W/N a writ of possession may be issued after payment of the provisional value only

FALLO: WHEREFORE, the Motion to Withdraw Appeal dated August 28, 2014 is GRANTED insofar as
it withdraws the Petition for Review dated June 4, 2010. This case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial
Court of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 43 for appropriate action.

HELD: A. No. The provisional value is only the value of the structures and improvements based on the
current zonal valuation byt the BIR, while the just compensation takes into account the prevailing fair
market value of the property or the value of the land.

The statutory requirement to pay a provisional amount equivalent to the full Bureau of Internal Revenue
zonal valuation does' not substitute for the judicial determination of just compensation. The payment to
the property owner of a preliminary amount is one way to ensure that property will not be condemned
arbitrarily. It allows frontloading the costs of the exercise so that it is the government instrumentality
that bears the burden and not the owner whose property is taken.

B. Yes. R.A. 8974 (Expropriation of private property for the national government infrastructure projects)
mandates that the the Implementing Agency shall determine the valuation of the improvements and/or
structures on the land to be acquired using the replacement cost method.

C. Yes. During the intiail stage of the proceedings, only the full payment of the provisional value is
required for the issuance of the writ of possession. However, all proceedings regarding the writ of
possession after the court has set the value of just compensation shall not eb granted unless the just
compensation is paid. Additionally, the law plainly requires direct payment to the property owner, and
not a mere deposit with the authorized government depositary. Without such direct payment, no writ of
possession may be obtained.

NPC committed an error in paying the provisional amount through the land bank of the philippines and
not the respondents themselves.

Notes:
There are two (2) stages in every action for expropriation. The first is concerned with the determination
of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise
in the context of the facts involved in the suit. The second phase of the eminent domain action is
concerned with the determination by the Court of "the just compensation for the property sought to be
taken. " This is done by the Court with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners.

The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. The executive
department or the legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of
the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use without just
compensation, no statute, decree; or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall
prevail over the court's findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the
"justness" of the decreed compensation.76 (Emphasis supplied)