SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 223195, January 29, 2020
NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, AS TRANSFEREE-ININTEREST OF THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. SPOUSES MARIANO S. TAGLAO AND CORAZON M. TAGLAO, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify and set aside the Decision2 dated December 17, 2015 and the Resolution3 dated February 22, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 102782. The CA dismissed for lack of merit the appeal filed by the National Power Corporation (NPC) to the Decision4 dated January 13, 2003 of Branch 83, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Tanauan City, Batangas.
The Antecedents
The National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) is the transferee-in-interest of the NPC-a government entity created to undertake the development of hydroelectric generation of power and production of electricity from any and all sources. To carry out its purpose, NPC was given authority by Republic Act No. (RA) 63955 to enter and acquire private properties.
To enable it to construct and maintain its Tayabas-Dasmariñas 500 KV Transmission Line Project, the NPC, on November 24, 1995, filed before the RTC a Complaint for Eminent Domain6 against the spouses Mariano and Corazon Taglao (Spouses Taglao), docketed as Civil Case No. C-034. The Spouses Taglao are the owners of a parcel of land covering an area of 5,143 square meters (sq.m.) situated at San Pioquinto, Malvar, Batangas. The NPC sought to acquire an easement of right of way over the 3,573-sq.m. portion (subject portion) of Spouses Taglao's property.
Spouses Taglao moved to dismiss the eminent domain case filed by the NPC.7 Meanwhile, the NPC filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession8 over the subject property.
In the Order9 dated September 18, 1996, the RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss of Spouses Taglao and granted the NPC's Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession over the subject portion of Spouses Taglao's property. In another Order10 dated June 23, 1999, the RTC thereafter declared as condemned the subject property.
On July 21, 1999, the RTC directed the parties to submit the names of their recommended commissioners for the purpose of detennining just compensation.11 The NPC recommended Engineer Moiselito C. Abcejo (Engr. Abcejo), while Spouses Taglao recommended Atty. Elueterio G. Zaballero (Atty. Zaballero).
On June 19 2001, the NPC's recommended commissioner, Engr. Abcejo, submitted a Commissioner's Report12 recommending the amount of P156,690.44 as just compensation for the subject portion, broken down as follows: a) P4,490.44 as easement fee (10% of the fair market value of the subject portion based on Tax Declaration); b) P151,570.00 as the value of damaged improvements; and c) P300.00 as tower occupancy fee for two legs.
On the other hand, the commissioner for Spouses Taglao, Atty. Zaballero, submitted a Report recommending the amount of P12,858,000.00 as just compensation. The value was pegged at P2,500.00 per sq.m., the market value of the subject property as of August 15, 2000.
The lot is unregistered and classified as orchard per Tax Declaration No. 014-00026 with a total area of 5,143 square meters. The affected area by the KV Tayabas-Dasmariñas transmission line project is 3,573 square meters and situated along a Barangay Road.The NPC moved for reconsideration15 of the RTC Decision, but its motion for reconsideration was denied on August 8, 2007.16
Based on the foregoing considerations, this Court fixes the market value at P 1,000.00 per square meter.
Considering that plaintiff is not seeking to purchase or acquire the areas affected but merely seeking for an easement of right-of-way, this Court fixes the just compensation at P509,170.00 applying the following formula[:]Tower Occupancy Fee for 2legs at 150/sq.m. = P 300
Easement Fee = Market Value x Area Affected x 10% Total Area= 5,143,000 x 3,573 x 10% 5,143= 357,300.00
Value of crops/plants/trees/improvements = P 151,570.00
TOTAL= 509,170.0014
The lot is unregistered and classified as orchard per Tax Declaration No. 014-00026 with a total area of 5,143 square meters. The affected area by the KV Tayabas-Dasmariñas transmission line project is 3,573 square meters and situated along a Barangay Road.As could be gleaned from the RTC's disquisition, there is nothing in the RTC Decision which would show how it arrived at such valuation. The valuation at P1,000.00 per sq.m. was not also supported by any documentary evidence. Nevertheless, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision and justified its P1,000 per sq.m. valuation in this wise:
Based on the foregoing considerations, this Court fixes the market value at P 1,000.00 per square meter.28
If in the year 2000, the value of the subject property was between Php2,000.00 to Php2,500 per square meter, it could safely be inferred t:mt the amount of Php1,000.00 per square meter, as pegged by the court a quo, was the fair market value in the year 1995, when the complaint for eminent domain was filed.29A simple reading of the CA's Decision would signify that its conclusion was highly speculative and devoid of any actual and reliable basis. Although the determination of just compensation indeed lies within the trial court's discretion, it should not be done arbitrarily or capriciously. The valuation of courts must be based on all established rules, correct legal principles, and competent evidence. The courts are proscribed from basing their judgments on speculations and surmises. The findings of both the RTC and the CA not being based on well grounded data, it is incumbent upon the Court to disregard them.
We disagree. The just compensation should not only be 10% of the market value of the subject property.
Just Compensation = Market Value x Area Affected x 10% Total Area
While the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of the expropriated property, no cogent reason appears why said power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of the condemned property, without loss of title and possession. However, if the easement is intended to perpetually or indefinitely deprive the owner of his proprietary rights through the imposition of conditions that affect the ordinary use, free enjoyment and disposal of the property or through restrictions and limitations that are inconsistent with the exercise of the attributes of ownership, or when the introduction of structures or objects which, by their nature, create or increase the probability of injury, death upon or destruction of life and property found on the land is necessary, then the owner should be compensated for the monetary equivalent of the land, x x x.33In this case, the TRANSCO needed to acquire easement on t.he subject property to enable it to construct and maintain its Tayabas-Dasmariñas 500 KV Transmission Line Project. Certainly the high-tension current to be conveyed through said transmission lines poses danger to life and limb; or possible injury, death or destruction to life and property within the vicinity. Considering that the installation of the power lines would definitely deprive Spouses Taglao of the normal use of their property, they are entitled to the payment of a just compensation, which is neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent of the subject property.
The subject property's market value should be fixed by the RTC taking into consideration the cost of acquisition of the land involved, the current value of like properties, its size, shape, location, as well as the tax declarations thereon, at the time of the filing of the NPC's complaint.35
Just Compensation = Total Market Value x Area Affected Total Area34 = Total Market Value x 3,573 sq.m. 5,143 sq.m.
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional member per Raffle dated January 6, 2020 in lieu of Associate Justice
Andres B. Reyes, Jr., who recused from the case due to prior participation in the Court of Appeals.
1Rollo, pp. 28-42.
2Id. at 47-56; penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, concurring.
3Id. at 58-59.
4Id. at 115-116; penned by Judge Voltaire Y. Rosales.
5 Entitled "An Act Revising the Charter of the National Power Corporation" (September 10, 1971).
6Rollo, pp. 60-66.
7Id. at 68-72.
8Id. at 73-75.
9Id. at 87.
10Id. at 88-89.
11Id. at 90.
12Id. at 91-93.
13Id. at 115-116.
14Id. at 116.
15Id. at 117-120.
16Id. at 122.
17Id. at 47-56.
18Id. at 55.
19Id. at 58-59.
20Id. at 35-37.
21Id. at 37-38.
22Republic v. Decena, G.R. No. 212786, July 30, 2018.
23National Power Corp. v. Bagui, et al., 590 Phil. 424, 433 (2008).
24National Power Corporation v. Diato-Bernal, 653 Phil. 345, 354 (2010).
25National Power Corporation v. Tiangco, 543 Phil. 637, 648 (2007).
26National Power Corporation v. Sps. Zabala, 702 Phil. 491, 505 (2013).
27 Based on the formula provided in the computation of easement fee28Rollo, p. 116.
Amount per sq.m. = Market Value Total Area
29Id. at 53.
30National Power Corporation v. Tiangco, supra note 25 at 649, citing NPC v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corp., 480 Phil. 470, 479 (2004).
31 543 Phil. 637 (2007).
32 795 Phil. 19 (2016).
33Id. at 47.
34 The standard formula used by the Court, such as in National Power Corp. v. Judge Paderanga, 502 Phil. 722 (2005).
35National Power Corp. v. Bagui, et al., supra note 23 at 434 (2008), citing Land Bank of the Phil. v. Wycoco, 464 Phil. 83, 97 (2004).
36Felisa Agricultural Corp. v. National Transmission Corp., G.R. Nos. 231655 & 231670, July 2, 2018.
37 See Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. v. Rep. of the Phils., 817 Phil. 1048 (2017); Land Bank of the Phils. v. Omengan, 813 Phil. 901 (2017); National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Gregorio Ramoran, et al., 787 Phil. 77 (2016).
38Republic v. Macabagdal, G.R. No. 227215, January 10, 2018, 850 SCRA 501, 507-508.