GR 170945; (September, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170945 ; September 26, 2006
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. MARIA MENDOZA SAN PEDRO, represented by VICENTE, HERMINIA and FRANCISCO, all surnamed SAN PEDRO, respondents.
FACTS
The National Power Corporation (NPC) negotiated with Maria Mendoza San Pedro for an easement of right-of-way over her property in Norzagaray, Bulacan, for its San Manuel-San Jose 500 KV Transmission Line Project. On June 19, 1997, Maria executed a Right of Way Grant for P1,277,886.90, with NPC having paid her for damaged improvements. A payment voucher for the residential portion, valued at P600 per square meter, was processed. However, the NPC Board later approved a resolution adopting lower valuation rates (P230/sq m for residential, P89/sq m for agricultural) based on specific appraisal guidelines. Consequently, NPC filed a complaint for eminent domain. Maria San Pedro contended that a prior agreement existed for compensation at P600 per square meter for the residential lot.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the imposition of the transmission line easement constitutes a compensable taking for which just compensation must be paid, and what constitutes just compensation in this case.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the installation of the transmission lines and towers constituted a compensable taking under the power of eminent domain. The legal logic is that an easement of right-of-way that imposes restrictions depriving the owner of the ordinary use of the property, and is intended to be permanent, is equivalent to a taking. The Court cited the commissioners’ findings, which noted the constant loud noises from the towers, the landowners’ reasonable fear for their safety and health, and the significant diminution in the property’s market value—particularly the slim chance of selling the remaining unaffected portions. These factors demonstrated that the easement went beyond a mere limitation and resulted in a permanent and severe impairment of the property’s use and value.
On just compensation, the Court upheld the valuation recommended by the commissioners and affirmed by the lower courts (P800/sq m for residential, P700/sq m for agricultural), as it was based on a factual examination of the property’s condition, the nature of the taking, and its impact on the remaining land. The Court emphasized that just compensation must be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken, and the prior Board Resolution citing lower rates could not supersede this constitutional mandate, especially given the permanent and invasive nature of the easement which effectively appropriated a portion of the property.