NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CARLOS VILLAMOR, Respondent G.R. No.

160080, June 19, 2009 Facts: Petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC) is a government-owned and controlled corporation. The main objective of NPC is the development of h dro-electric generation power and the prod!ction of power from an other so!rce. "ts charter grants to NPC the power, among others, to e#ercise the right of eminent domain. $!e to its %e te-Ceb! "nterconnection Project, NPC&s '() *+ Talisa -Compostela transmission lines and towers have to pass parcels of land in the Cit of $anao and ,!nicipalit of Carmen, both sit!ated in the province of Ceb!. Two of these lands sit!ated in Cantipa , Carmen, Ceb! are owned b respondent Carlos +illamor (+illamor). -n these lands stand fr!it-bearing trees, s!ch as mango, cocon!t, avocado, so!rsop or g! abano, jac.fr!it, tamarind, breadfr!it, s!gar apple or atis, /panish pl!m or sinig!elas and banana0 and non-fr!it bearing trees, s!ch as mahogan and gemilina. NPC filed with a complaint for eminent domain of +illamor&s lands. NPC deposited with the Philippine National 1an. P'(,223.4), representing the assessed val!e on the ta# declaration of the lands. "n the co!rse of the proceedings, several parties intervened, namel Teodolo +illamor, Teofilo +illamor and N!nila 5bellar. The were allegedl the siblings of respondent +illamor and the heirs of the late spo!ses 6ose and $olores +illamor. The intervenors claimed that NPC violated their legal rights in negotiating onl with +illamor, who is j!st one of seven heirs. +illamor was allegedl not a!thori7ed b the other legal heirs to negotiate and receive pa ment for the land so!ght to be e#propriated. The onl iss!e between NPC and +illamor involves the reasonableness and ade8!ac of the j!st compensation of the properties. +illamor filed his Comment to the Commissioners& Report. +illamor e#hibited a similar e#propriation case, filed b NPC against 9rancisco +illamor, involving a lot, designated as %ot ' of :2;2, Cad. 2)<:-$, adjoining the lands of +illamor. "n said case, the trial co!rt rendered a decision fi#ing the j!st compensation at P:)) per s8!are meter. =owever, !pon motion of NPC, the amo!nt was red!ced to P<3). +illamor pra ed that the trial co!rt consider the same amo!nt of j!st compensation as that awarded to the landowner adjacent to his lands. 9!rther, +illamor stated that a small portion of %ot < consisting of an area of 23.'( s8!are meters had been separated from the remaining !naffected portion of the total area and wo!ld not be !sed b +illamor for an prod!ctive p!rposes. Th!s, +illamor pra ed that s!ch small portion be incl!ded as part of the total area that sho!ld be compensated b NPC. The Co!rt of 5ppeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the trial co!rt. NPC filed a ,otion for Reconsideration. This was denied b the appellate co!rt in a Resol!tion. Issue:

>hether the fair mar.et val!e awarded b the trial co!rt ma be red!ced ta.ing into acco!nt that petitioner is allegedl ac8!iring onl an easement of right of wa and that the lands affected are classified as agric!lt!ral. Ruling: The petition lac.s merit. Petitioner contends that !nder /ection (5 of its charter, R5 :(;3, where private propert will be traversed b transmission lines, NPC shall onl ac8!ire an easement of right of wa since the landowner retains ownership of the propert and can devote the land to farming and other agric!lt!ral p!rposes. ,oreover, in the present case, since the lands are agric!lt!ral with no sign of commercial activit , the amo!nt of P<3) per s8!are meter awarded b the trial co!rt as mar.et val!e of the propert is e#cessive and !nreasonable. Respondent maintains that the affected portions of the lands are not onl traversed b petitioner&s transmission lines b!t a portion is also !sed as the site of its transmission tower. =e asserts that petitioner cannot hide behind the provisions of /ection (5 and claim that it ma onl pa landowners an easement fee not e#ceeding 2)? of the mar.et val!e of the propert . 9!rther, respondent points o!t that other landowners similarl affected b the %e te-Ceb! "nterconnection Project were compensated in the amo!nt of P<') to P<3) per s8!are meter as shown b deeds of absol!te sale and compromise agreements e#ec!ted b petitioner in other e#propriation cases. Petitioner&s reliance on /ection (5 @''A of R5 :(;3 has been str!c. down b this Co!rt in a n!mber of cases. Basement of right of wa falls within the p!rview of the power of eminent domain. "n installing the '() *+ Talisa -Compostela transmission lines which traverse respondent&s lands, a permanent limitation is imposed b petitioner against the !se of the lands for an indefinite period. This deprives respondent of the normal !se of the lands. "n fact, not onl are the affected areas of the lands traversed b petitioner&s transmission lines b!t a portion is !sed as the site of its transmission tower. 1eca!se of the danger to life and limbs that ma be ca!sed beneath the high-tension live wires, the landowner will not be able to !se the lands for farming or an agric!lt!ral p!rposes. ,oreover, petitioner entered into two compromise agreements d!l approved b the trial co!rt, which fi#ed the val!ation of the lands at P<') per s8!are meter based on the previo!s val!ation fi#ed and approved b petitioner and the trial co!rt on three other e#propriation cases. Th!s, Co!rt see no reason to dist!rb the findings of the trial and appellate co!rts. "ndeed, respondent is entitled to j!st compensation or the j!st and complete e8!ivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing e#propriated has to s!ffer b reason of the e#propriation. /ince the determination of j!st compensation in e#propriation proceedings is essentiall a j!dicial f!nction, this Co!rt finds the amo!nt of P<3) per s8!are meter to be j!st and reasonable compensation for the e#propriated lands of respondent.