SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 198139, September 08, 2014
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FELICISIMO TARCELO AND HEIRS OF COMIA SANTOS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
In the Commissioner’s Report filed by Chairman of the Board Emelinda C. Atienza, she recommended x x x the amount of P1,120.00 per square meter as just compensation for the properties involved in this case. She based her findings on the following:Property of Felicisimo Tarcelo7
- The subject property is classified as agricultural land;
- It is approximately 420 meters away from Shell Refinery and approximately 40 meters away from the Barangay Road;
- Adjoining boundary owners property [sic] are also classified as agricultural lands.
Property of the Heirs of Santos Comia8
- The property is classified as agricultural land;
- It is approximately 560 meters away from Shell Refinery and approximately 140 meters away from the Barangay Road;
- Adjoining boundary owners property [sic] are also classified as agricultural land.
Commissioners Alberto M. Nuique and Eladio Taupa of the National Power Corporation (NPC) also submitted their own Commissioner’s Report. They recommended that the amount of P475.00 per square meter be made as the payment of the affected portion of the subject property which is 10% of the fair market value pursuant to Republic Act No. 6395 as amended.
Commissioners Taupa and Nuique recommended the amount of P475.00 per square meter because only a right-of-way easement will be acquired. According to the Supreme Court in the case of NPC v. Manubay Agro Industrial Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 150936, August 18, 2004, even if what is acquired is only an easement of right of way, still, the plaintiff should pay the full value of the property and not a mere easement fee.
Based on the foregoing, the court fixes the just compensation for the subject properties situated in Brgy. Tabangao-Ambulong, Batangas City at ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) per square meter.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff National Power Corporation is ordered to pay the defendants the amount of P1,000.00 per square meter.
Upon payment of just compensation to the defendants, subject to the deductions of the sums due the Government for unpaid real estate taxes and other imposts, the plaintiff shall have a lawful right to enter, take possession and acquire easement of right-of-way over the portions of the properties together with the improvements sought to be expropriated for the purpose stated, free from any and all liens and encumbrances.
Finally, the plaintiff is directed to pay the corresponding Commissioner’s fees per meeting or the following sums:Chairman Emelinda C. Atienza - P1,000.00SO ORDERED.9
Members Alberto M. Nuique - P 800.00
and Eladio Taupa - P 800.00
At bar, it cannot be gainsaid that the construction of underground pipeline is a simple case of mere passage of gas pipeline. It will surely cause damage and prejudice to the agricultural potentials of appellees’ property. Deep excavation will have to be done whereby plants and trees will be uprooted. A possible leakage could certainly do harm and adversely restrict the agricultural and economic activity of the land. This is not to mention that it will create an environmental health hazard dangerous to the occupant’s life and limb.
Hence, defendants-appellees are entitled for [sic] just compensation to [sic] the full market value of their property not just ten percent (10%) of it.
x x x x
Taking all the consideration [sic] of the subject property, Commissioners Taupa and Nuique placed the value of the property at P475.00 per square meter based on the Land Bank valuation and Cuervo Appraisers, Inc. and the Provincial/City Appraisal Committees of Batangas, Laguna and Lipa City, while Commissioner Atienza valued the property at P1,120.00 per square meter, based on the average value per findings of the Committee composed of the City Assessor, City Treasurer, City Engineer under Resolution No. 9-99 dated June 18, 1999 that the subject property will cost P1,000.00 to P1,300.00 per square meter, and the opinion value of her Team’s survey and Report which revealed that the prevailing price of agricultural land in Tabangao-Ambulong, Batangas City is NINE HUNDRED THIRTY PESOS (P930.00) per square meter.
In pronouncing the just compensation in this case, We fix the rate of the subject property at SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN [sic] and FIFTY CENTAVOS (P797.50) per square meter by averaging P475.00 and P1,120.00 of the commissioner’s report. This is nearest to and in consonance with the ruling that in expropriation proceedings, the owner of the property condemned is generally entitled to the fair market value, that is the sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to sell.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, appealed decision dated November 7, 2005 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the just compensation in this case is lowered from ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) to SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN and FIFTY CENTAVOS (P797.50) per square meter. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.11
The cases cited by plaintiff are not in point. These cases involved either the construction and maintenance of electric transmission lines x x x or the widening of road component x x x. None of the cited cases involved underground natural gas pipelines, as in this case. It does not take an expert to be able to infer that there is a world of difference on the probable effects of the two (2) kinds of projects on the properties upon which these are imposed. In the case of transmission lines, the NPC imposes a limitation on the property owner’s use of their property in that below said transmission lines no plant higher than three (3) meters is planted. In the case of underground pipelines, similar, if not more burdensome restrictions, are imposed for the reason that the ground under which the natural gas pipelines are located could not be cultivated in view of the dangers that might result from accidental injury or damage to the pipelines. Moreover, there is the possible inestimable damage that an unpredictable natural disaster such as an earthquake of tectonic origin, the precise date and time of occurrence of which are yet beyond the powers of man to accurately foretell, could inflict on the underground natural gas pipelines and consequently, on all things, living and non-living, that exist in the vicinity of the defendants’ properties.
Moreover, the ruling that just compensation should be paid for the entire area of the owner’s property and not just the affected portion thereof is not without precedent. In NPC vs. Court of Appeals (436 SCRA 195, 201 [August 12, 2001]), the Supreme Court [noted] that “Pobre’s property suffered permanent injury because of the noise, water, air, and land pollution generated by NPC’s geothermal plants[; t]he construction and operation of the geothermal plants drastically changed the topography of the property making it no longer viable as a resort-subdivision[; and t]he chemicals emitted by the geothermal plants damaged the natural resources in the property and endangered the lives of the residents. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that “NPC did not only take the 8,311.60 square meter portion of the property but also the remaining area of the 68,969 square-meter property. NPC had rendered Pobre’s entire property useless as a resort-subdivision. The property has become useful only to NPC. NPC must therefore take Pobre’s entire property and pay for it. x x x
In the case at bar, it was not disputed that the subject properties are agricultural lands. In order to be useful to its owners, such agricultural lands must be cultivated to yield a harvest of agricultural produce. But when such lands are burdened with an easement even of the non-apparent kind, but which to all intents and purposes restrict, nay, preclude the very activity that would render it useful to its owners because the existence of such easement poses an undeniable danger to the life and limb of the occupants, then such lands cease to be useful to the property owners and useful only to the entity that imposed the easement upon the land. The Honorable Court of Appeals recognized this fact when it declared that:“At bar, it cannot be gainsaid that the construction of underground pipeline is a simple case of mere passage of gas pipeline. It will surely cause damage and prejudice to the agricultural potentials of appellees’ property. Deep excavation will have to be done whereby plants and trees will be uprooted. A possible leakage could certainly do harm and adversely restrict the agricultural and economic activity of the land. This is not to mention that it will create an environmental health hazard dangerous to the occupant’s life and limb.Thus, the argument of defendant heirs of Santos Comia is well taken that as to them, the entire area of their property, and not just the affected portion thereof, had become useless to them. It is [useful only] to plaintiff NPC. The same holds true for the entire property owned by defendant Felicisimo Tarcelo. Therefore, NPC must pay for the full market value of the entire properties owned by defendant Felicisimo Tarcelo and defendant heirs of Santos Comia.
Hence, defendants-appellees are entitled for [sic] just compensation to the full market value of their property not just ten percent of it.
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.” x x x
WHEREFORE, the Omnibus Motion is DENIED. As the Writ of Execution dated March 9, 2009 and Notice of Garnishment dated May 14, 2009 are consistent with the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 28, 2007, this Court’s Sheriff is hereby ordered to forthwith enforce the Writ of Execution dated March 9, 2009 and Notice of Garnishment dated May 14, 2009 and to submit immediately a written report on his proceedings thereon.
SO ORDERED.19
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DENIED. Accordingly, the assailed Orders of the public respondent Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, in Civil Case No. 5785, STAND.
SO ORDERED.23
Based on the foregoing, the court fixes the just compensation for the subject properties situated in Brgy. Tabangao-Ambulong, Batangas City at ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) per square meter.24 (Emphasis supplied)
At bar, it cannot be gainsaid that the construction of underground pipeline is a simple case of mere passage of gas pipeline. It will surely cause damage and prejudice to the agricultural potentials of appellees’ property. Deep excavation will have to be done whereby plants and trees will be uprooted. A possible leakage could certainly do harm and adversely restrict the agricultural and economic activity of the land. This is not to mention that it will create an environmental health hazard dangerous to the occupant’s life and limb.
Hence, defendants-appellees are entitled for [sic] just compensation to [sic] the full market value of their property not just ten percent (10%) of it.28
x x x. In the case of underground pipelines, similar, if not more burdensome restrictions, are imposed for the reason that the ground under which the natural gas pipelines are located could not be cultivated in view of the dangers that might result from accidental injury or damage to the pipelines. Moreover, there is the possible inestimable damage that an unpredictable natural disaster such as an earthquake of tectonic origin, the precise date and time of occurrence of which are yet beyond the powers of man to accurately foretell, could inflict on the underground natural gas pipelines and consequently, on all things, living and non-living, that exist in the vicinity of the defendants’ properties.
Moreover, the ruling that just compensation should be paid for the entire area of the owner’s property and not just the affected portion thereof is not without precedent. In NPC vs. Court of Appeals (436 SCRA 195, 201 [August 12, 2001]), the Supreme Court [noted] that “Pobre’s property suffered permanent injury because of the noise, water, air, and land pollution generated by NPC’s geothermal plants[; t]he construction and operation of the geothermal plants drastically changed the topography of the property making it no longer viable as a resort-subdivision[; and t]he chemicals emitted by the geothermal plants damaged the natural resources in the property and endangered the lives of the residents. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that “NPC did not only take the 8,311.60 square meter portion of the property but also the remaining area of the 68,969 square-meter property. NPC had rendered Pobre’s entire property useless as a resort-subdivision. The property has become useful only to NPC. NPC must therefore take Pobre’s entire property and pay for it. x x x
In the case at bar, it was not disputed that the subject properties are agricultural lands. In order to be useful to its owners, such agricultural lands must be cultivated to yield a harvest of agricultural produce. But when such lands are burdened with an easement even of the non-apparent kind, but which to all intents and purposes restrict, nay, preclude the very activity that would render it useful to its owners because the existence of such easement poses an undeniable danger to the life and limb of the occupants, then such lands cease to be useful to the property owners and useful only to the entity that imposed the easement upon the land. The Honorable Court of Appeals recognized this fact when it declared that:“At bar, it cannot be gainsaid that the construction of underground pipeline is a simple case of mere passage of gas pipeline. It will surely cause damage and prejudice to the agricultural potentials of appellees’ property. Deep excavation will have to be done whereby plants and trees will be uprooted. A possible leakage could certainly do harm and adversely restrict the agricultural and economic activity of the land. This is not to mention that it will create an environmental health hazard dangerous to the occupant’s life and limb.Hence, defendants-appellees are entitled for (sic) just compensation to [sic] the full market value of their property not just ten percent of it.29
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDERS APPROVING THE NOTICE OF GARNISHMENT WHICH DEMANDED PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OF RESPONDENTS INSTEAD OF THE AFFECTED PORTIONS ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPLAINT AND THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION.II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF LIBERALITY ENUNCIATED IN SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.31
The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the State or by its authorized agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights. It is one of the harshest proceedings known to the law. x x x The authority to condemn is to be strictly construed in favor of the owner and against the condemnor. When the power is granted, the extent to which it may be exercised is limited to the express terms or clear implication of the statute in which the grant is contained.38
IV. Recommendation
Finding x x x that the valuation established herein was reasonable and fair, the undersigned recommend [sic] that the amount of Php1,120.00 per square meter be adopted to compensate the affected areas on the properties involve [sic] in the above subject case.40 (Emphasis supplied)
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is hereby recommended that only easement fee be made as the payment on the affected portion of the above-mentioned parcel of agricultural land which is 10% of the fair market value pursuant to Republic Act 6395 as amended x x x41 (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, plaintiff National Power Corporation is ordered to pay the defendants the amount of P1,000.00 per square meter.
Upon payment of just compensation to the defendants, subject to the deductions of the sums due the Government for unpaid real estate taxes and other imposts, the plaintiff shall have a lawful right to enter, take possession and acquire easement of right-of-way over the portions of the properties together with the improvements sought to be expropriated for the purpose stated, free from any and all liens and encumbrances.42 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
At bar, it cannot be gainsaid that the construction of underground pipeline is a simple case of mere passage of gas pipeline. It will surely cause damage and prejudice to the agricultural potentials of appellees’ property. Deep excavation will have to be done whereby plants and trees will be uprooted. A possible leakage could certainly do harm and adversely restrict the agricultural and economic activity of the land. This is not to mention that it will create an environmental health hazard dangerous to the occupant’s life and limb.
Hence, defendants-appellees are entitled for (sic) just compensation to (sic) the full market value of their property not just ten percent (10%) of it.
x x x x
Taking all the consideration [sic] of the subject property, Commissioners Taupa and Nuique placed the value of the property at P475.00 per square meter based on the Land Bank valuation and Cuervo Appraisers, Inc. and the Provincial/City Appraisal Committees of Batangas, Laguna and Lipa City, while Commissioner Atienza valued the property at P1,120 per square meter, based on the average value per findings of the Committee composed of the City Assessor, City Treasurer, City Engineer under Resolution No. 9-99 dated June 18, 1999 that the subject property will cost P1,000.00 to P1,300.00 per square meter, and the opinion value of her Team’s survey and Report which revealed that the prevailing price of agricultural land in Tabangao-Ambulong, Batangas City is NINE HUNDRED THIRTY PESOS (P930.00) per square meter.43 (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
It is a settled general principle that a writ of execution must conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated. Execution not in harmony with the judgment is bereft of validity. It must conform, more particularly, to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.48
Moreover, petitioner is correct in saying that impleading her for the purpose of execution is tantamount to modifying a decision that had long become final and executory. The fallo of the 1997 Decision by the NLRC only held “respondents Pro Agency Manila Inc., and Abdul Rahman Al Mahwes to jointly and severally pay complainants x x x.” By holding her liable despite not being ordained as such by the decision, both the CA and NLRC violated the doctrine on immutability of judgments.
In PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we stressed that “respondent’s [petitioner’s] obligation is based on the judgment rendered by the trial court. The dispositive portion or the fallo is its decisive resolution and is thus the subject of execution. x x x. Hence the execution must conform with that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.”
In INIMACO v. NLRC, we also held thus:None of the parties in the case before the Labor Arbiter appealed the Decision dated March 10, 1987, hence the same became final and executory. It was, therefore, removed from the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC to further alter or amend it. Thus, the proceedings held for the purpose of amending or altering the dispositive portion of the said decision are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Also, the Alias Writ of Execution is null and void because it varied the tenor of the judgment in that it sought to enforce the final judgment against ‘‘Antonio Gonzales/Industrial Management Development Corp. (INIMACO) and/or Filipinas Carbon and Mining Corp. and Gerardo Sicat, which makes the liability solidary.In other words, “[o]nce a decision or order becomes final and executory, it is removed from the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further alter or amend it. It thereby becomes immutable and unalterable and any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose. An order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.”49 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 1770 dated August 28, 2014.
** Per Special Order No. 1767 dated August 27, 2014.
1National Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto, 485 Phil. 732, 762 (2004).
2Rollo, pp. 28-64.
3 Id. at 67-81; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Franchito N. Diamante.
4 Id. at 83-84.
5 Id. at 95-110.
6 Id. at 111-114; penned by Judge Teodoro Tapia Riel.
7 Affected to the extent of 459.03 square meters (acquisition) and 909.38 square meters (lease), out of his total land ownership of 4,404 square meters.
8 Affected to the extent of 25 square meters (acquisition) and 202.50 square meters (lease), out of their total land ownership of 2,611 square meters.
9Rollo, pp. 112-113.
10 Id. at 115-122; penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa.
11 Id. at 120-122.
12 Id. at 37.
13 Id. at 131-137.
14 Id. at 138.
15 Id. at 139-141.
16 Id. at 142.
17 Id. at 144-147.
18 Id. at 148-152; penned by Judge Aida C. Santos.
19 Id. at 150-152.
20 Id. at 153-158.
21 Id. at 159-160.
22 Id. at 161-195.
23 Id. at 80.
24 Id. at 113.
25 480 Phil. 470 (2004).
26 Id. at 479.
27Rollo, p. 76; citing La Campana Development Corporation v. Development Bank of the Philippines, 598 Phil. 612 (2009); Policarpio v. Philippine Veterans Board, 106 Phil. 125 (1959).
28Rollo, p. 120.
29 Id. at 150-151.
30 Id. at 286-309.
31 Id. at 41.
32 Id. at 373-387.
33National Power Corporation v. Purefoods Corporation, 586 Phil. 587 (2008); National Power Corporation v. Bagui, 590 Phil. 424 (2008); National Power Corporation v. Tiangco, 543 Phil. 637 (2007); National Power Corporation v. Judge Paderanga, 502 Phil. 722 (2005); and Republic v. Ker and Company Limited, 433 Phil. 70 (2002).
34Rollo, pp. 328-354.
35 Supra note 25.
36 RULES OF COURT, Rule 15, Sections 4, 5 and 6.
37Rollo, pp. 358-365.
38Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation, Inc. v. Municipality (now City) of Pasig, Metro Manila, 503 Phil. 845, 862 (2005).
39National Power Corporation v. Diato-Bernal, G.R. No. 180979, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 660, 669.
40Rollo, p. 96.
41 Id. at 99, 109.
42 Id. at 113.
43 Id. at 120-121.
44 National Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto, supra note 1.
45Florentino v. Rivera, 515 Phil. 494, 503 (2006).
46 PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 421 Phil. 821, 825 (2001).
47 Solidbank Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 428 Phil. 949, 958 (2002).
48 Id. at 957-958.
49Gagui v. Dejero, G.R. No. 196036, October 23, 2013.
50Land Bank of the Philippines v. Orilla, G.R. No. 194168, February 13, 2013, 690 SCRA 610, 618-619.