Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
FACTS:
For purposes of constructing and maintaining its steel transmission lines and
wooden electric poles for its Naga-Tiwi and Naga-Daraga Transmission Lines,
NPC filed, on January 23, 2006, an expropriation complaint against
respondents as registered owners of the following four parcels of land located in
Pili, Camarines Sur.The total area over which NPC sought an easement of right
of way covers 49,173 square meters of the subject properties. Based on the tax
declarations allegedly classifying the properties as agricultural and based on
the corresponding Bureau of Internal Revenue's (BIR) zoning valuation therefor,
NPC offered to pay PhP 299,550.50.
ISSUE:
WON the just compensation for the subject land areas is PhP 47,064,400?
RULING:
NPC's expropriation complaint filed on January 23, 2006 clearly sought "to
acquire an easement of right-of-way over portions of the subject
properties to enable it "to construct and maintain its steel transmission lines
and wooden electric poles. NPC's action relative to the acquisition of an
easement of right-of-way made prior to the filing of its expropriation
complaint was limited only to the conduct of negotiations with respondents.
This, as much, was alleged by NPC itself in its expropriation complaint and
was testified to by NPC's right-of-way officer who conducted the negotiations
in 1996.
There being no sufficient proof that NPC actually took the subject properties
at a date preceding the filing of the expropriation complaint, the time of the
taking should be taken to mean as coinciding with the commencement of the
expropriation proceedings on January 23, 2006. Hence, the value at the time
of the filing of the complaint should be the basis for the determination of the
value when the taking of the property involved coincides with or is
subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings.
DECISION:
In the present case, the Court favored the contention of the respondents in
fixing the amount of just compensation of the properties affected as supported
by several pertinent documents. The decision was just but right because the
compensation corresponds to the actual value, or if not, at least approximately
close to the actual value of the properties. Because otherwise, the amount
initially offered by NPC, which is relatively lower than its actual value would
prejudice the land owners.
Source:
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2017novemberdecisions.php?id=847