G.R. No. 155065 . July 28, 2005
National Power Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Sylva G. Aguirre Paderanga, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Danao City, Branch 25, Petrona O. Dilao, et al., and Estefania Enriquez, Respondents.

FACTS

The National Power Corporation (NPC) filed a complaint for expropriation to acquire right-of-way easements over parcels of land owned by respondents Petrona Dilao, her siblings, and Estefania Enriquez for the Leyte-Cebu Interconnection Project. The RTC granted the complaint and appointed commissioners to determine just compensation. The commissioners recommended a valuation of ₱516.66 per square meter for the Dilao property. NPC opposed, citing Section 3A of its charter ( R.A. No. 6395 , as amended), which caps compensation for an easement at ten percent (10%) of the land’s market value. The RTC adopted the commissioners’ valuation in its November 10, 1999 Decision, ordering NPC to pay the full market value.
NPC received a copy of the decision on November 18, 1999, and filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC denied the appeal for NPC’s failure to file a record on appeal, ruling it was required. NPC filed a petition for relief, which was denied. The RTC then granted execution. NPC elevated the case via certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC, holding that a record on appeal is necessary in expropriation cases as they involve multiple appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the filing of a record on appeal is mandatory to perfect an appeal in an expropriation case.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that an action for expropriation is a special civil action governed by Rule 67. However, for purposes of appeal, Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly requires a record on appeal in special proceedings and in cases where multiple or separate appeals are allowed. Expropriation involves two distinct stages: first, the determination of the plaintiff’s right to expropriate, and second, the determination of just compensation. These stages are separately appealable. Therefore, the case falls under the category of “multiple appeals” under Rule 41, making the filing of a record on appeal mandatory to perfect an appeal from the decision on just compensation.
NPC’s contention that no record on appeal was needed because the decision appeared to be against all defendants (including Enriquez, who did not answer) was unavailing. The RTC clarified that its decision pertained only to the Dilao group, against whom the case was actively litigated. Thus, the appeal was not a single, but a separate appeal. NPC’s failure to file the required record on appeal rendered the RTC’s decision final and executory. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the lower courts’ orders denying the appeal and granting execution.