G.R. No. 254020. March 01, 2023
HEIRS OF RAISA DIMAO, NAMELY: ELIAS D. COMAGUL, EDRES D. COMAGUL, SAPIA D. COMAGUL, RASMIA D. DIMACALING, SALEM RASCAL, SAIDAMEN D. COMAGUL, AND RAIHANI D. MANGADIRA, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Sometime in 1978, the National Power Corporation (NPC) constructed the Baloi-Agus 2 138kV Transmission Line (BATL). The respondent National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP), having assumed the management and operation of the transmission business, instituted expropriation proceedings in 2014 over 11,640 square meters of Lot No. 104, covered by a Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo registered in the name of the late Raisa A. Dimao (the petitioners’ predecessor), to clear vegetation underneath the transmission lines. The RTC granted the expropriation and awarded just compensation of ₱49,622,050.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed NGCP’s right to expropriate but deleted the award of just compensation. The CA held that the property, originating from a free patent, is subject to a 60-meter easement of right-of-way under Section 112 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, and that the taking occurred in 1978 when the transmission lines were built, before the petitioners’ predecessor acquired title in 2012. The CA also found no evidentiary basis for compensation for improvements. Petitioners argue that Section 112 of CA 141 is unconstitutional, that the taking occurred in 2014 upon the filing of the complaint, and that they are entitled to just compensation based on NGCP’s own valuation guidelines.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to just compensation for the expropriation of their property.
2. What is the applicable law and the reckoning point for the computation of just compensation.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. It held that the respondent NGCP, as a franchise holder, has the delegated authority to exercise the power of eminent domain for public use. The Court ruled that the taking of the property occurred in 1978 when the NPC constructed the transmission lines and entered the property, which act constituted a taking under the power of eminent domain. The property, being derived from a free patent, is subject to the 60-meter easement of right-of-way under Section 112 of CA 141, as amended. This provision applies to the respondent as a quasi-public entity undertaking the project. The petitioners, having acquired the property in 2012, long after the establishment of the easement, cannot claim compensation for the land itself. Compensation, if any, is limited to the value of improvements existing at the time of the taking in 1978. However, the petitioners failed to present evidence of such improvements at that time. The evidence they presented pertained to improvements planted after the filing of the complaint, which were deemed to have been planted in bad faith to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any award of just compensation. The Court affirmed the CA decision deleting the RTC’s compensation award.