NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, v. APOLONIO V. MARASIGAN, FRANCISCO V.

MARASIGAN, LILIA V. MARASIGAN, BENITO V. MARASIGAN, JR., and

ALICIA V. MARASIGAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 220367. November 20, 2017. TIJAM, J.
Section 4 of Rule 67 lays down the basic rule that the value of the just compensation is to be
determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came
first.
FACTS: For purposes of constructing and maintaining its steel transmission lines and wooden
electric poles, petitioner National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) filed, on 23 January 2006, an
expropriation complaint against respondents to obtain an easement of right of way over four
parcels of land covering 49,173sqm. NAPOCOR offered to pay P229,550.50 for the properties
classified by the tax declaration as agricultural. Respondents opposed the classification stating that
since 1993, the properties were classified as industrial, commercial and residential as shown by
Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 17 and Municipal Ordinance No. 7. They thus claimed
P47,064,400.00 and consequential damages for the areas left in between each transmission line.
RTC issued an Order of Expropriation and fixed the value of the properties at PhP47,064,400.00
which NAPOCOR deposited at the Landbank of the Philippines. It also issued a writ of possession in
favor of NAPOCOR. Meanwhile, an appraisal committee was formed prompting a reversed trial. The
Chairman of the committee testified that the recommended valuation is P49,064,400.00 and that
the consequential damages amount to P22,227,800.00 as payment for the “dangling” portions
which could no longer be used. RTC then rendered a decision which affirmed the recommendation
of the committee. NAPOCOR appealed the erroneous award of just compensation and consequential
damages. CA denied the appeal and affirmed RTC’s Order. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the value of just compensation should be reckoned at the time of the taking in
1970s
2. Whether the award of consequential damages is proper
RULING:
1. No. The value of just compensation should be reckoned at the time of the filing of the
complaint in 2006. Section 4 of Rule 67 lays down the basic rule that the value of the just
compensation is to be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the
complaint, whichever came first.
In the case, NAPOCOR insists that it took the properties in the 1970s despite having initiated the
expropriation complaint only in 2006. However, its complaint and testimonial evidence strongly
militate against such proposition. RTC and CA were thus correct in disregarding NPC’s claim of
actual taking in the 1970s as such was not alleged in the expropriation complaint nor was it
successfully proven during the trial. There being no sufficient proof that NAPOCOR actually took the
subject properties at a date preceding the ling of the expropriation complaint, the time of the taking
should be taken to mean as coinciding with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings
on 23 January 2006.
2. Yes. As a rule, just compensation, to which the owner of the property to be expropriated is
entitled, is equivalent to the market value, except when only a part of a certain property is
expropriated wherein the owner is not only restricted to compensation for the portion actually
taken, but is also entitled to recover the consequential damages, if any, to the remaining part of the
property. Consequential damages is specifically enunciated under Section 6 of Rule 67 which states
that “the commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to the property not taken and deduct
from such the consequential benefits to be derived by the owner… In no case shall the consequential
benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the actual
value of his property so taken.”
In the case, the appraisal committee determined the total dangling area to be 41,867 square meters
and recommended the payment of consequential damages in the amount of PhP22,227,800.00. In
arriving at its recommendation to pay consequential damages, the appraisal committee made an
ocular inspection and observed that the areas before and behind the transmission lines could no
longer be used for their purposes as the transmission lines conveying high-tension current posed
danger to the lives and limbs of respondents and to potential farm workers, making the affected
areas no longer suitable even for agricultural production. Thus, the Court finds no reason to depart
from the assessment of the appraisal committee, as affirmed and adopted by the RTC.