University of San Agustin College of Law

MARZAN 1-E

Case Name National Power Corporation v. Spouses Chiong

Topic Power of Eminent Domain
Case No. |
G.R. No. 152436 | June 20, 2003
Date
Ponente Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing
Petitioner sought to expropriate lands to build its transmission lines for power, without
Case
objection from respondents, however they contest the value of the compensation declared
Summary
by the RTC. The CA and the SC both affirmed the decision of the RTC.
The [rule on market value] is modified where only a part of a certain property is
expropriated. In such a case, the owner is not restricted to payment of the market value
of the portion actually taken. In addition, he is also entitled to payment of consequential
Doctrine
damages, if any, to the remaining part of the property. At the same time, the value of
consequential benefits, if any, must be deducted from the total compensation, provided
consequential benefits shall not exceed consequential damages. (As stated in Nachura)

RELEVANT FACTS

 Petitioner National Power Corporation, a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC),

sought to acquire an easement of right of way upon certain protions of agricultural lands in Iba,
Zambales, owned by the respondents Igmedio and Liwayway Chiong and the Heirs of Agrifina
Angeles, to be used in its Northwestern Luzon Transmission Line Project.
 Respondent Heirs of Agrifina Angeles during the hearings averred that petitioner had already started
possessing the land prior to the filing of its complaint, however both respondents did not object.
 Commissioners appointed by the RTC of Iba submitted their report, recommending the payment of
five hundred pesos (₱500.00) per square meter to the respondents; whereas the Commissioner
appointed by the NPC recommended the value to be only twenty-two pesos and fifty centavos
(₱22.50).
 The RTC granted the expropriation, adopting the recommendation of the its own appointed
Commissioners.
 Petitioner was dissatisfied with the judgment of the RTC and filed a special civil action for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals, averring that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it:
a. directed NPC to pay just compensation for the land taken without first issuing an order of
expropriation;
b. adopted the compensation recommended by the two commissioners without a hearing; and
c. directed petitioner to pay the full market value of the property instead of a mere easement fee.
 The CA denied the petition for lack of merit, opining:
a. that as early as the pre-trial, respondents did not question petitioner’s right to expropriate their
properties;
b. that formal hearings are not necessary in expropriation proceedings, as long as the parties
are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard before the order to pay
compensation is issued, wherein petitioner was afforded ample time or opportunity to object
to the commissioners’ report before said order was issued, and likewise failed to move for
reconsideration or appeal the order, ultimately estopping them from claims of lack of due
process; and
c. that the assessed value of P500.00 per square meter to be fair as opposed to the NPC-
appointed commissioner’s valuation of P22.50 per square meter.
 University of San Agustin College of Law
MARZAN 1-E

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
Whether or not there
is just compensation
in the computation
of the RTC
Ratio
 YES. The duty of the court in considering the commissioners’ report is to
satisfy itself that just compensation will be made to the defendant by its final
judgment in the matter.
 In eminent domain or expropriation proceedings, the general rule is that the
just compensation to which the owner of condemned property is entitled to is
the market value.
 Petitioner averred in its complaint, that it sought to acquire an easement of
right-of-way over portions of the properties owned by respondents, however
their complaint shows that it would also erect structures for its transmission
lines on portions of the expropriated property. In other words, the expropriation
was not limited to the purpose of “easement of right-of-way.”
 Market value is “that sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled
to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a
price to be given and received therefor”1. This rule however is modified where
only a part of a certain property is expropriated. In such a case the owner is
not restricted to compensation for the portion actually taken, but he is also
entitled to recover for the consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part
of the property. At the same time, the value of the consequential benefits, if
any, must be deducted from the total compensation.

RULING

Petition is DENIED. Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

1
City of Manila v. Estrada, 25 Phil. 208, 214 (1913).