NPC v. CA
254 SCRA 577 | March 11, 1996 PANGANIBAN, J. Payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint, not at the time of taking. FACTS
Petition for review on certiorari the decision of Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s judgment on the expropriation proceedings. In 1978, National Power Corporation (NPC) took possession of a lot in Marawi City owned by Mangondatu, under the mistaken belief that is was public property. Despite Mangondatu’s protests, NPC defended its actions by claiming that it was already paying “financial assistance” to the city in exchange for the city’s waiver of right over the property. More than a decade later, NPC finally recognized that the lot was private property belonging to Mangondatu and entered into a deed of sale with him. The fair market value of the property was determined by Marawi City’s appraisal committee. A first resolution was issued by the NP C 2 2 Board, fixing the amount at P100/m for the 12,000m portion of the lot, plus 12% interest per annum from 1978. When NPC’s regional counsel reclassified the lot to industrial, they issued two memoranda 2 declaring the value of the property at P300/m . Despite the increase in the value of the property, 2 NPC resolved to pay Mangondatu P100/m without interest. Mangondatu demanded for the P300/m2 price, and during the pendency of the final value, he demanded to be paid P100/m2. In 1992, Mangondatu filed a civil case before the lower court to recover recov er his property from NPC, and demanded a monthly rent instead at P15,000/month from 1978. He also filed a TRO against the company. It was only during this time that NPC filed a complaint for eminent domain against Mangondatu over the subject property. According to Mangondatu, NPC’s actions amounted to an “unauthorized taking and continued possession” of his property since 1978, and that damages must be awarded to him for being deprived of its use for more than a decade. He requested that just compensation for the land be reckoned at the time of the filing of expropriation case. NPC opposed Mangon datu’s terms, stating that the assessed value of the property should be computed from the time of the taking in 1978. At the time of filing of complaint in 1992, 199 2, the fair market value of the property was already at 2 P1000/m . The lower court decided to condemn the property in favor of NPC and declared the fair market value to be computed from the time the complaint was filed, which led to a total of P21,995,000 as just compensation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower cou rt’s decision.
[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 1
ISSUES AND HOLDING
1. Whether the value of just compensation for the property was to be computed in 1992 when the complaint was filed instead of in 1978 when the “taking of the property” was done. YES. The general rule in determining just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is found in Section 4, Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court, which stats that in an Order of Condemnation, the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property “…upon payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.” Normally, the time of the taking coincides with the filing of the complaint for expropriation. The exception to this general rule is where the owner would be given undue incremental advantages from the use of the expropriated property. Petitioner NPC has not established any proof that the increase of P1000 was due to increments caused by petitioner’s use of the land. The present price can be attributed to ordinary inflation and increase in land values from 1978 to 1992. Therefore, petitioner can not invoke the exception to Section 4 of Rule 67. The taking did not take place in 1978, because petitioner’s entrance in 1978 was not legal. It was without intent to expropriate nor was it made under a “warrant or color of legal authority.” Petitioner believed that the property was owned by the City of Marawi, and when private respondent claimed ownership of the land in 1979, petitioner flatly refused the claim and thought that the city had already conferred upon it rights over the property. After a decade of beneficial use was only when petitioner recognized private respondent as the private owner and negotiated for a voluntary purchase of the property. The acts of petitioner do not constitute the intent of expropriation nor the exercise o f eminent domain as contemplated by law. It was only in 1992 when private respondent filed a civil case against petitioner that it decided to file its own complaint for eminent domain. 2
2
2. Whether the value for just compensation should be P1000/m rather than P40/m . YES. The value of just compensation should be P1000/m2. The Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the appointed commissioners who determined the price of the property. These people are considered experts in their field, and were not shown to have abused their authority in evaluating the evidence. Petition DISMISSED. Decision of respondent court is AFFIRMED. 12% interest per annum is reduce to the legal rate of 6% per annum.
[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 2
