G.R. No. 246565 June 10, 2020
Facts:
On September 7, 2001, the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) filed an expropriation complaint against several petitioners, including Ricardo S. Schulze, Sr., seeking an easement of right of way over portions of land in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, for the construction of a transmission line. The subject lots formed part of larger tracts of land, and NAPOCOR offered to pay a simple easement fee.
The petitioners opposed the expropriation and argued that their lands’ assessed and market values had already increased significantly. They also claimed that the installation of NAPOCOR’s facilities would negatively affect the remaining portions of their lots, entitling them to consequential damages.
After receiving a Writ of Possession, NAPOCOR paid the petitioners an amount based on the BIR zonal valuation of the subject lots. Subsequently, the RTC appointed a Board of Commissioners to determine the just compensation for the properties. The Board recommended a valuation rate based on market data from the years 2002 and 2003. The RTC adopted these findings and accordingly fixed the just compensation for the subject lots. Additionally, the RTC awarded consequential damages, considering the impairment of the affected lots’ values due to the presence of NAPOCOR’s facilities. It also granted attorney’s fees to the petitioners.
Unsatisfied, NAPOCOR appealed to the CA, which upheld the just compensation but deemed the award of consequential damages speculative and removed the attorney’s fees. The CA remanded the case to the trial court for further evidence of consequential damages.
The petitioners sought partial reconsideration, which the CA denied. Hence, they filed the current petition.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in remanding the case to determine the proper amount of consequential damages
Ruling:
Yes, the Court held that the Court of Appeals (CA) made an error in ruling that the award of consequential damages was unsupported by evidence. It stated that just compensation for expropriation is equivalent to the fair market value of the property to be taken. However, when only a portion of a property is acquired, the owner is entitled to recover consequential damages for the remaining property if it suffers an impairment or decrease in value due to the expropriation, provided such fact is proven with sufficient evidence.
The award of consequential damages is recognized under Section 6, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. The commissioners appointed to assess the damages have the duty to view and examine the affected property and its surroundings, measure the same, and hear arguments from both parties. The commissioners should assess the consequential damages to the property not taken and deduct any consequential benefits derived from the public use or purpose of the taken property or the operation of the corporation or person taking the property.
In this case, records showed that the value of the affected lots was indeed impaired due to their proximity to the power posts, transmission lines, and other facilities installed on the subject lots. This constrained the use of the properties and created fears of radiation, electrocution, and other health risks in the minds of potential buyers. The RTC observed that high-powered transmission lines would necessarily diminish the value and use of the property and endanger lives and limbs. The Court Commission’s Report, quoted and adopted by the RTC, also supported this finding. Thus, the Court held that consequential damages were appropriately awarded to the petitioners, and the CA’s decision to the contrary was reversed. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the matter of consequential damages, which the CA had previously deemed speculative.
Text of the Case, please click the link below: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/jun2020/gr_246565_2020.html
Real LexEcon 