Owner's loss, not taker's gain

In an aerial easement of right of way for the passage of the transmission lines of the National Power Corporation (Napocor) that does not actually occupy the entire property subject of the expropriation proceedings, the established jurisprudence is that the just compensation must cover the entire property and not only 10% of its market value as provided by its charter. This case explains how just compensation is determined.

This case is about the expropriation of the lands of the Sanchez family belonging to two brothers and two sisters for the implementation of Napocor’s 350 KV Leyte-Luzon HDVC Power Transmission Project to transmit the excess electrical generating capacity from Leyte Geothermal Plant to Luzon and various load centers.

After filing the necessary petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Napocor was granted possession of the lands allegedly containing an area of 24,350 sq.m. after the deposit of the provisional value of the property in the amount of P7,465.71.

In answer to the Petition, the Sanchez brothers and sisters alleged that the total area of their property is 34,950 sq.m., not 24,350 and that Napocor has already constructed two transmission lines in the middle of the property, cut down 737 trees of different varieties (coconut, fruit, bamboo, banana, madre de cacao and other shade trees), an estimated 562.86 board feet of hardwood trees and 706.80 board feet of softwood trees and prohibited them from planting trees higher than three meters. Thus on motion of the family for the determination of just compensation, the RTC appointed commissioners for the purpose.

Using market data analysis, income productivity and zonal valuation, and finding that the Sanchez family was intending to develop the land into a subdivision considering that it is surrounded by residential subdivisions, the commissioners reported a valuation of P783,860.46 for the said land.

Despite the objection of Napocor, the RTC adopted the Commissioners’ recommendation of just compensation and ordered Napocor to pay the brothers and sisters the sum of P783,860.46 less P7,465.71 it has deposited.

Napocor however still contested the valuation of the just compensation. It contended that the Sanchez family can still make use of the property by planting corn, root crops and similar plants. Was Napocor’s contention valid?

No. Napocor fails to consider that the property was originally tilled and suited for, as confirmed by the Commissioners Report, 234 fruit bearing coconut trees, 617 abaca plants, 50 madre de cacao and 23 jackfuit trees. Since it prohibited the owners from planting trees higher than three meters, it is clear that the easement has impaired their beneficial enjoyment of their property to warrant the imposition of payment of its full value.

The measure is thus 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 thereby convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.

The nature, as well as the character of the land at the time of the taking is thus the principal criteria in determining just compensation. All the facts as to the condition of the property and it surroundings, as well as its improvements and capabilities must be considered (National Power Corp. vs. Suarez etc. G.R. 175725, October 8, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]