USA College of Law

YULO 1-F
Case Name National Power Corporation vs CA
Topic Eminent Domain
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 113194 March 11, 1996
Ponente PANGANIBAN, J.
the value of the land subjected to expropriation shall be computed at the date of the filing of the
Doctrine
complaint, not at the date of the taking of the land.

RELEVANT FACTS
 In 1978, National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR), took possession of a land situated in Marawi City,
owned by Mangondato.
 Napocor believed that the said land is part of the public land reserved for hydroelectric power purposes
 Mangondato demanded compensation from NAPOCOR for taking the land.
 NAPOCOR refused to compensate insisting that the property is public land
 Mangondato claimed that the subject land is his duly registered private property
 More than a decade later NAPOCOR agreed to the fact that the property belongs to Mangondato.
 CFI and CA ordered NAPOCOR to pay P21,995.000.00, NAPACOR question the said value.

ISSUE: 1. At what point in time should the value of the land subject of expropriation be computed: at the date of
the taking or the date of the filing of the complaint?

2. When is There "Taking" of Property?

RULING:
1. At the time of the complaint.

The general rule in determining "just compensation" in eminent domain is the value of the property as of the date
of the filing of complaint, as follows:

Sec. 4. Order of Condemnation. When such a motion is overruled or when any party fails to defend as required by this
rule, the court may enter an order of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property
sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just
compensation to, be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. . . .

2. There is taking of property when:

(1) an expropriator enters a private property;

(2) the entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period;
(3) the entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority;
(4) property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected;
(5) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way to oust the owner and deprive him of all
beneficial enjoyment of the property.

RULING
DISMISSED