REPUBLIC OF THE PH, represented by the NAPOCOR v.
o To be allowed to nominate their representative to the panel of
HEIRS OF SATURNINO Q. BORBON and CA
GR No. 165354 12 January 2015
By Kylie Dado
FACTS:
NAPOCOR entered a property in Brgy. San Isidro, Batangas
 In order to construct and maintain transmission lines for the 230 KV
MahabangParang-Pinamucan Power Transmission Project
o The heirs owned the propery (14, 257 sq. m.)
NAPOCOR filed a COMPLAINT in the RTC-Batangas
 Seeking - acquisition of an easement of right of way over a portion of the
property involving an area of only 6,326 square meters, more or less
 Allegation:
o It had negotiated w/ the respondents but they failed to reach any
agreement
o It was willing to deposit P9,790.00 representing the assessed value of
the portion sought to be expropriated
 Prayer:
o Issuance of a writ of possession upon deposit to enable it to:
1. Enter and take possession and control of the affected portion
of the property
2. Demolish all improvements existing
3. Commence construction of the transmission line project
4. Appointment of 3 commissioners to determine just
compensation
Heirs’ ANSWER:
 NAPOCOR had not negotiated with them before entering the property (Entry
w/o consent), destroying some fruit trees without payment, and installing 5
woodpoles for its project
 Area being expropriated only covered the portion directly affected by the
transmission lines
 Remaining portion of the property was also affected because the transmission
line passed through the center of the land, thereby dividing the land into 3 lots
 Presence of the high tension transmission line had rendered the entire property
inutile for any future use and capabilities
 NONETHELESS, they tendered no objection provided it would pay just
compensation not only for the portion sought to be expropriated but for the
entire property whose potential was greatly diminished, if not totally lost, due
to the project;
 Their property is an industrial land
 Sought:
o Dismissal of the complaint
o Payment of P1K/sq. m. & attorney’s fees
commissioners to be appointed by the trial court
PRE-TRIAL was conducted and the parties stipulated on the location, number of heirs,
names of the person upon whom title to the property was issued, and the ownership &
possession of the property.
 RTC directed the parties to submit names of their nominees to sit in the panel of
commissions within 10 days from the date of pre-trial
RTC constituted the panel of 3 commissioners.
 2 commissioners submitted a joint report, and found:
o property was classified industrial land located within the Industrial 2
Zone
o although it is used to be an agricultural land, it was reclassified to
industrial for appraisal/taxation purposes
o Reclassification was made on the basis of a certification issued by the
Zoning Administrator
 2 commissioners appraised the value @ P550/sq. m.
 3rd commissioner filed a separate report
o Recommended the payment of easement fee of at least 10% of the
assessed value indicated in the tax declaration + damages +
improvements affected + tower occupancy
Parties submitted their OBJECTIONS:
 HEIRS - NAPOCOR should compensate them for the entire property at the rate
of P550.00/ sq. m. because the the property was already classified as industrial
land at the time NAPOCOR entered it
 NAPOCOR – insisted that the property was classified as agricultural land at the
time of its taking, and only seeking an easement of right of way over a portion of
the property, not the entire area so, it should only pay 10% of the assessed
value of the portion
RTC DECISION:
 Price to be paid – value at the time of taking, which is the date of entry to the
property or the date of the filing of the complaint
o There is no evidence as to when NAPOCOR entered so the reference
point should be the date of filing – May 5, 1995
 Gave more weight to the Joint Report of the 2 commissioners
o NOTE: the 2 commissioners who submitted the Joint Report are gov’t
EE, while the one who has a separate report is a private lawyer
representing the plaintiff
 Ordered NAPOCOR to pay:
1. Just compen for the whole area (14K sq. m.) @ the rate of P550/sqm
2. Legal rate of interest from May 5 until full payment
3. Costs of suit
CA DECISION: Affirmed but modified the area to be covered – 6,326 sqm
NAPOCOR appealed.
During the pendency of the appeal, NAPOCOR filed a Motion to Defer Proceedings
stating that the negotiations were going on with a view of amicable settlement.
 HOWEVER, a year after, NAPOCOR filed a Manifestation and Motion to
DISCONTINUE Expropriation Proceedings as:
o they failed to reach an agreement
o property is no longer necessary for public purpose because of the
intervening retirement of the transmission lines installed on the heirs’
property
o public purpose ceased to exist
o prayedthat the compensation be reduced by the equivalent of the
benefit they received from the land during the time of its occupation
o Basis in dismissing the proceedings: Metropolitan Water District vs. De
Los Angeles,land sought to be expropriated was no longer
“indispensably necessary” in the maintenance and operation of
petitioner’s waterworks system
ISSUE: W/N THE EXPROPRIATTION PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED/DISMISSED
PENDING APPEAL
SC: YES
Public use is the fundamental basis for the action for expropriation; hence, NAPOCOR’s
motion to discontinue the proceedings is warranted and should be granted.
As discussed in the case of Metropolitan Water District vs. De Los Reyes:
The fundamental basis then of all actions brought for the expropriation of lands, under
the power of eminent domain, is public use. That being true, the very moment that it
appears at any stage of the proceedings that the expropriation is not for a public use,
the action must necessarily fail and should be dismissed, for the reason that the action
cannot be maintained at all except when the expropriation is for some public use. That
must be true even during the pendency of the appeal or at any other stage of the
proceedings.
 It is notable in that case that it was made subject to several conditions in order
to address the dispossession of the defendants of their land, and the
inconvenience, annoyance and damages suffered by the defendants on account
of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the trial court
for the issuance of a writ of possession ordering Metropolitan Water District to
immediately return possession of the land to the defendants, and for the
determination of damages in favor of the defendants, the claims for which must
be presented within 30 days from the return of the record to the court of origin
and notice thereof.
In this case, NAPOCOR seeks to discontinue the expropriation proceedings on the ground
that the transmission lines constructed on the respondents’ property had already been
retired.
Verily, the retirement of the transmission lines necessarily stripped the expropriation
proceedings of the element of public use. To continue with the expropriation
proceedings despite the definite cessation of the public purpose of the project would
result in the rendition of an invalid judgment in favor of the expropriator due to the
absence of the essential element of public use.
No board resolution to discontinue the proceedings
Despite the lack of the board resolution, therefore, the Court now considers the
documents (such as the Memorandum &Certificate of Inspection/Accomplishment)
attached to NAPOCOR’s Manifestation and Motion to Discontinue Expropriation
Proceedings to be sufficient to establish that the expropriation sought is no longer for
some public purpose.
NAPOCOR’s entry without the owner’s consent
NAPOCOR entered the property without the owners’ consent and without paying just
compensation to the respondents. Neither did it deposit any amount as required by law
prior to its entry.
 It would be unfair for NAPOCOR not to be made liable to the respondents for
the disturbance of their property rights from the time of entry until the time of
restoration of the possession of the property
Liability of NAPOCOR; Reckoning Point
There is sufficient showing that NAPOCOR entered into and took possession of the
property as early as in March 1993 without the benefit of first filing a petition for
eminent domain.
 For all intents and purposes, therefore, March 1993 is the reckoning point of
NAPOCOR’s taking of the property, instead of May 5, 1995, the time NAPOCOR
filed the petition for expropriation. (Basis: Ansaldo vs. Tantuico)
No just compensation, only damages
In view of the discontinuance of the proceedings and the eventual return of the property
to the respondents, there is no need to pay “just compensation” to them because their
property would not be taken by NAPOCOR.
 Instead of full market value, NAPOCOR should compensate the respondents for
the disturbance of their property rights from the time of entry in March 1993
until the time of restoration of the possession by paying to them actual or other
compensatory damages. (Basis: Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v.
Lozada, Sr.)
Basis of damages
Basis would be the actual lost as a result and by reason of their dispossession of the
property and of its use, including the value of the fruit trees, plants and crops destroyed
by NAPOCOR’s construction of the transmission lines
Conversion of the proceedings: Expropriation Proceedings  Action for Damages
Court remands the case to the court of origin for further proceedings, with instruction
toenable the parties to fully litigate the action for damages.