Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Case Summary: The NGCP filed a complaint for expropriation against PAFC. The RTC issued an Order of
expropriation. PAFC questioned the R45 petition of NGCP; the former alleged that said petition should not have
been directly filed with the SC. The SC declared that Rule 67 provides that if the objections to and the defenses
against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are overruled, the court may issue an order of
expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated, 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 taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. The provision also provides
that a final order sustaining the right to expropriate, such as the assailed Order, may be appealed by any party
aggrieved thereby. Such appeal shall, however, shall not prevent the court from determining the just compensation
to be paid. The PAFC further alleged that the property was part of public dominion and so inalienable. The SC
declared that the property is not of public dominion, it is actually patrimonial property and can be sold to private
interests.
Facts:
February 9, 2011: The National Grid Corporation of the Philippines filed a complaint for expropriation against
PAFC
o NGCP claims that as a private corporation engaged in the business of transmitting electric power from
generating plants of power producers to distributors
o NGCP was granted a “franchise to operate, manage and maintain, transmitting electricity through high
voltage back-bone system of interconnected transmission lines, substations and related facilities” etc.
NGCP further alleged that in order for them to construct and maintain the Mariveles-Limay 230
kV transmission line project they wanted to expropriate, upon payment of just compensation a
certain area of parcel of land in Bataan (the subject property is part of the Petrochemical Industrial
Park)
The Petrochemical Industrial Park was originally part of a parcel of land of the public domain
o Starting from 1968, several proclamations were done which withdrew and transferred the property to be
handled by different entities
LONG HISTORY OF WHO MANAGED THE PROPERTY AND OTHER STUFF NOT SO
IMIPORTANT HEHE
o 1993: PAFC (which originally had the name of PNOC Petrochemicals Development Corporation), was
incorporated as a subsidiary of PNOC for the primary purpose of administering and operating the
Petrochemical Industrial zone
o 2006: the name was changed to PNOC Alternative Fuels Corporation PAFC
o 2011: NGCP filed the complaint to expropriate the subject property from PAFC
According to NGCP, they were seeking their right to exercise its right of eminent domain over the
subject property because negotiations between the two parties were unsuccessful
NGCP invoked its general authority to exercise the right of eminent domain under Section 4 of RA
9511
PAFC filed its Answer, alleging that several statues and issuances limit NGCP’s right to
expropriate, and that the land sought to be appropriates is already devoted to a public purpose,
specifically to petrochemical and petrochemical related industries; which is considered as essential
to the national interest
o 2013: During the pendency of the case, RA 10516 was passed. This law expanded the use of Petrochemical
Industrial Park to include businesses engaged in energy and energy-allied activities, or of such other
business activities that will promote its best economic use
o 2013: RTC Decision Issued the Order of Expropriation and ruled that NGCP has a lawful right to
expropriate the subject property upon payment of just compensation
Issues + Held:
1. W/N PAFC was incorrect in filing a R45 petition directly before the SC NO (MAIN ISSUE)
Rule 67, Section 4 provides that if the objections to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate
the property are overruled, the court may issue an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful
right to take the property sought to be expropriated, 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 taking of the property or the filing of the
complaint, whichever came first
o In the assailed Order, the RTC denied the objections and defenses raised by PAFC for lack of merit
o The provision also provides that a final order sustaining the right to expropriate, such as the assailed Order,
may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby. Such appeal shall, however, shall not prevent the court
from determining the just compensation to be paid
o It is clear: the proper remedy of the defendant in an expropriation case who wishes to contest an order is
not to file a certiorari petition and allege GAD of the RTC, but to file an appeal of the Order of
Expropriation
o Hence, it is clear that PAFC had the right to appeal the Order. Although they mistakenly referred to the
Petition as “Petition for Certiorari”, it is actually for all intents and purposes a petition for review on
Certiorari under R45
In addition, it must be noted that PAFC repeatedly alleged that their instant appeal is pursuant to
R45 raising a pure question of law to set aside or nullify the assailed Order of Expropriation
PAFC resorted to filing the appeal directly to the SC because it believed that the case only
involved pure questions of law.
Under R41, in all cases where only questions of law are raised, the appeal shall be filed directly
before the court, not via a notice of appeal or record on appeal, but through a petition for review
on certiorari in accordance with R45
o The Court then further held that the petition may be decided by dealing purely with questions of law
“a question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts,
while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged
facts.”
IN the case at bar, PAFC raises the argument that the expropriation of the property by NGCP is
invalid because such exercise of eminent domain was neither done directly by Congress nor
pursuant to a specific grant of authority
It is apparent that this argument is legal in nature
To be sure, the Court will be able to decide on the validity of the assailed Order by merely
looking at the applicable law and jurisprudence on eminent domain
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Order dated February 11, 2016 of the RTC is AFFIRMED.