G.R. No. 172507. September 14, 2016 ]
“Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution guarantees that when the state takes private property for public use, it must compensate the owner fairly. If an agreement on compensation isn’t reached, the state needs to initiate an expropriation action according to the legal rules.”
Facts:
In this specific case, the National Power Corporation took a portion of land owned by Spouses Margarito and Tarcinia Asoque for a transmission line project. Initially, the Asoques were promised fair compensation for their land and the damages caused during construction.
However, a dispute arose when the National Power Corporation only paid for the damages but refused to compensate for the actual land value. In response, the Asoques filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court, seeking both just compensation and damages.
During the legal proceedings, the trial court allowed the Asoques to present evidence without the National Power Corporation’s presence due to the latter’s absence during pre-trial. A court-appointed commissioner assessed the fair market value of the land and recommended compensation.
Ultimately, the trial court ruled in favor of the Asoques, ordering the National Power Corporation to pay just compensation for the land and the damages. The National Power Corporation appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court’s decision with some modifications.
Subsequently, the National Power Corporation filed a petition with the Supreme Court, challenging various aspects of the lower courts’ decisions. They argued that they were not given a fair opportunity to defend their case and questioned the valuation of the land.
On the other hand, the Asoques contended that due process was followed during the legal proceedings, and they believed that the trial court’s determination of just compensation should stand.
Issue:
Whether or not the appraisal of the property is valid and the court-appointed commissioner exceeded his authority;
Whether the trial court erred in its determination of just compensation
Held:
Firstly, it was established that the procedure of designating the clerk of court as a commissioner to receive and report evidence to the court was in accordance with Rule 32, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The commissioner’s role was to assess evidence and make recommendations regarding compensation. However, the final determination of just compensation rested with the court.
RULE 32
Trial by Commissioner
. . . .
SEC. 3. Order of reference; powers of the commissioner. — When a reference is made, the clerk shall forthwith furnish the commissioner with a copy of the order of reference. The order may specify or limit the powers of the commissioner, and may direct him to report only upon particular issues, or to do or perform particular acts, or to receive and report evidence only, and may fix the date for beginning and closing the hearings and for the filing of his report. Subject to the specifications and limitations stated in the order, the commissioner has and shall exercise the power to regulate the proceedings in every hearing before him and to do all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient performance of his duties under the order. He may issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, swear witnesses, and unless otherwise provided in the order of reference, he may rule upon the admissibility of evidence. The trial or hearing before him shall proceed in all respects as it would if held before the court.
Furthermore, after the hearing before the Commissioner, the Commissioner must file a written report, which may contain his or her factual findings and conclusions of law:
RULE 32
Trial by Commissioner
. . . .
SEC. 9. Report of commissioner. – Upon the completion of the trial or hearing or proceeding before the commissioner, he shall file with the court his report in writing upon the matters submitted to him by the order of reference. When his powers are not specified or limited, he shall set forth his findings of fact and conclusions of law in his report. He shall attach thereto all exhibits, affidavits, depositions, papers and the transcript, if any, of the testimonial evidence presented before him.
Hence, absent any express limitation in the order of reference, the Branch Clerk of Court, as the court-appointed Commissioner, may make factual findings and recommendations on the valuation of the property.
Secondly, the Court clarified that these proceedings were not for expropriation but rather for the recovery of just compensation and damages initiated by the landowners. Therefore, Rule 67, Section 5, which pertains to the ascertainment of just compensation in expropriation cases, did not apply.
The Court also emphasized that when a government agency violates procedural requirements in the taking of property, it waives the usual procedures prescribed by law. This principle was applied in this case.
Furthermore, the Court determined that the acquisition of the right-of-way easement constituted a taking under the power of eminent domain due to factors such as the indefinite nature of the easement, the deprivation of the property owner’s beneficial enjoyment, and the potential danger posed by the transmission lines. As a result, just compensation was required.
While statutory provisions suggested that only 10% of the market value should be paid for the easement, the Court asserted that the determination of just compensation was a judicial function. The Court considered various factors, including the property’s accessibility, availability of basic services, land valuation trends, and interviews with neighboring landowners. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Regional Trial Court’s valuation of the property, which was based on these factors, as reasonable.
Therefore, the Court affirmed the decision requiring the National Power Corporation to pay just compensation to the landowners for the portion of their land used for the transmission line project, with legal interest. Upon payment, the landowners were ordered to execute a Deed of Conveyance for the affected property in favor of the National Power Corporation.
Real LexEcon 