MERALCO wanted to construct a 230 KV Transmission line from Barrio Malaya to Tow

er at Pililla, Rizal in the reat estate property of Teofilo Arayon Sr., Gil de G
uzman, Lucito Santiago and Teresa Bautista. Parties attempt negotiations but fai
led to reach an agreement and offers to pay compensation. Respondents then filed
a complaint for eminent domain with the trial court and won the case granting t
hem rights to expropriate the property needed. Unfortunately, the petitioner sol
d to NAPOCOR its power plant and transmission lines including the property dispu
ted herein.
The court then ordered the appraisal of the land in answer for the motion for wi
thdrawal of deposit which respondents were entitled to. However, the apprisal by
the commissioners were never completed due to the suspension when petitioners f
iled a Motion to Dismiss due to the said sale to NAPOCOR. Later, respondents fil
e another motion for for payment and the court granted them another sum for the
compensation. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration that at this sta
ge the respondents are not yet entitled to payment of just compensation as there
is no appraisal yet and that court, upon awarding a fraction of sum, based it on
ly on a witness of a credible realestate broker instead of employing the assista
nce of three commissioners to determine just compensation.
W/N the employment of three commissioners in the ascertainment of just compensat
ion is dispensable
HELD.
The judge's act of determining and ordering the payment of just compensation wit
hout the assistance of a Board of Commissioners is a flagrant violation of MERAL
CO's constitutional right to due process and is a gross violation of the mandate
d rule established by the Revised Rules of Court.
In an expropriation case where the principal issue is the determination of just
compensation, a trial before the Commissioners is indispensable to allow the par
ties to present evidence on the issue of just compensation. The appointment of a
t least 3 competent persons as commissioners to ascertain just compensation for
the property sought to be taken is a mandatory requirement in expropriation case
s. While it is true that the findings of commissioners may be disregarded and th
e court may substitute its own estimate of
the value, the latter may only do so for valid reasons:
1. where the Commissioners have applied illegal principles to the evidence submi
tted to them; 2. where they have disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence;
3. where the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive.
Thus, trial with the aid of the commissioners is a substantial right that may no
t be done away with capriciously or for no reason at all. Moreover, in such inst
ances, where the report of the commissioners may be disregarded, the trial court
may make its own estimate of value from competent evidence that may be gathered
from the record.