NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs.

HEIRS OF MACABANGKIT SANGKAY

G.R. No. 165828. August 24, 2011
Bersamin, J.

Topic: Power of Eminent Domain

Petitioner: National Power Corporation
Respondent/s: Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, namely: Cebu, Batowa-an, Sayana, Nasser,
Manta, Edgar, Putri, Mongkoy, and Amir Macabangkit

Doctrine: The taking of private property for public use, to be compensable, need not be an actual
physical taking or appropriation. Compensable taking included destruction, restriction, diminution
or interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common and necessary use and enjoyment of
the property in a lawful manner, lessening or destroying its value. It is not required that owners
be wholly deprived of the use of his property. Parties are still entitled to just compensation despite
no apparent physical taking.

FACTS:
 National Power Corporation, pursuant to its legal mandate under RA 6395, undertook the
Agus River Hydroelectric Power Plant Project to generate electricity for Mindanao.
 The project included the construction of several underground tunnels to be used in
diverting the water flow from the Agus River to the hydroelectric plants
 On November 21, 1997, the respondents sued NPC for recovery of damages of the
property and a prayer for just compensation.
 They alleged that the tunnel deprived them of the agricultural, commercial, industrial and
residential value of their land; and that their land had also become an unsafe place for
habitation, forcing them and their workers to relocate to safer grounds.
 Respondents contended that tunnel was constructed without their knowledge and consent
 The petitioner countered that the respondents had no right to compensation under section
section 3 (f) of RA 6395 under which a mere legal easement on their land was established,
and that their cause of action already prescribed (5 years)
 RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring that the owners had lost the agricultural,
commercial, industrial and residential value of the land. Thus, allowing the respondents to
be justly compensated.
 CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC because of substantial evidence (testimonies of NPC
witness Gregorio Enterone, Engr. Pete Sacedon, the topographic survey map, the sketch
map, and the ocular inspection—evidences that established the existence of the
underground tunnel traversing the land)

ISSUE: Whether the Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay have the right to just compensation

HELD:
 Yes. The underground tunnels impose limitations on respondents’ use of the property for
an indefinite period and deprived them of its ordinary use. The should be fully
compensated even if the tunnel is just an easement
 Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by
the expropriator. It has the objective to recover the value of property taken in fact by the
governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain
has been attempted by the taking agency.
 Even if the construction does not constitute and apparent physical taking of property, as it
is just an easement, It is settled that the taking of private property for public use, to
be compensable, need not be an actual physical taking or appropriation. This is so
because in this case, the nature of the easement practically deprives the owners of
its normal beneficial use. Compensable taking includes destruction, restriction,
diminution, or interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common and necessary use
and enjoyment of the property in a lawful manner, lessening or destroying its value