LINTAG vs NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION [GR. NO.

158609 9JULY 27, 2007)]

Facts:
Lintag and Arrastia are the registered owners of a property with an area of 80,001
sq. mtrs, covered by the TCT No. T-24855 and located at Brgy. Bibincahan, Sorsogon.

On December 4, 1996, respondendt National Power Corporation (NPC, for brevity)

filed a complaint for Eminent Domain against petitioners in order to acquire an easement
of a right of way over a portion of the said property, consisting of 8,050 sq. mtrs. (subject
property) with an initial assessed value at 2,468.09. NPC averred that such acquisition
was necessary and urgent for the construction and maintenance of NPC’s 350 KV Leyte-
Luzon HVDC Power Transmission Project.

On January 17, 1997, after the deposit of the initial assessed value of the subject
property amounting to Ᵽ2,468.09 with the Philippine National Bank, the RTC, upon an ex-
parte motion of NPC, ordered the issuance of a Writ of Possession on the subject property
consonant with PD No. 42.

On September 13, 2000, pre-trial was held and pre-trial order was issued. The
case was set for trial on the merits on November 15, 2000.

However, on November 7, 2000, RA No. 8974 entitled “An act to facilitate the
acquisition of right of way, site or location for National Government Infrastructure Projects
and for other purposed” was approved.

On February 14, 2001, petitioners filed a motion asking the RTC to direct the NPC
to comply with RA No. 8974. In the said motion, petitioners asseverated that pursuant to
sec. 4 of RA No. 8974, they are entitled to 100% of the value of the subject property based
on the current relevant zonal valuation made by the BIR, which at the time was pegged
at Ᵽ700.00 per sq. mtr. Thus, petitioners prayed that NPC be directed to pay
Ᵽ5,635,000.00 for the subject property.
ISSUE:
whether or not NPC should be required to pay full market value as just
compensation despite the fact that the petitioner was only acquiring an easement of right-
of-way

HELD:
In eminent domain or expropriation proceedings, the general rule is that the just
compensation to which the owner is entitled to is the market value, which is “the sum of
money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner wiling but not
compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received therefor.” When
only a part of a property is expropriated, the owner is also entitled to recover for the
consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property, from which value of
consequential benefits must be deducted. In fixing the valuation at P500/m², the CA noted
that the trial court had considered the reports of the commissioners and proofs submitted
by the parties. The trial court found that the land sought to be expropriated are agricultural
land with minimal improvements. It is the nature and character of the land at the time of
the taking that is the principal criterion to determine just compensation to the landowner.
Without any showing that the valuation is exorbitant or otherwise unjustified, factual
finding of the CA is binding on the parties. The petition is denied for lack of merit. CA’s
decision is affirmed.