Case Title: NAPOCOR vs. G.R. No.

173520
SPS. Zabala and Baylon

Del Castillo, J.: Date: Jan. 30, 2013

Doctrine: Legislative enactments, as well as executive issuances, fixing or providing fix the method of computing just compensation
are tantamount to impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives

Facts: On October 27, 1994, plaintiff-appellant National Power Corporation filed a complaint for Eminent Domain against defendants-
appellees Sps. R. Zabala & L. Baylon, et. al., before the Regional Trial Court, Balanga City, Bataan alleging that: defendants-
appellees own parcels of land located in Balanga City, Bataan; it urgently needed an easement of right of way over the affected areas
for its 230 KV Limay-Hermosa Transmission Lines; after due notice to defendants-appellees, and upon deposit with the Philippine
National Bank of the amount equal to the assessed value of the subject properties for taxation purposes which is to be held by said
bank subject to the orders and final disposition of the court; It prayed for the issuance of a writ of possession authorizing it to enter
and take possession of the subject property, and to commence with the construction of the transmission lines project on the subject
properties, and to appoint not more than three (3) commissioners to ascertain and report the just compensation for the said easement of
right of way.

Napocor appealed to the CA. It argued that the Commissioners’ reports upon which the RTC based the just compensation are not
supported by documentary evidence. Napocor likewise imputed error on the part of the RTC in not applying Section 3A of Republic
Act (RA) No. 639511 which limits its liability to easement fee of not more than 10% of the market value of the property traversed by
its transmission lines.

Napocor contends that under Section 3A of RA No. 6395, it is not required to pay the full market value of the property when the
principal purpose for which it is actually devoted will not be impaired by its transmission lines. It is enough for Napocor to pay
easement fee which, under the aforementioned law, should not exceed 10% of the market value of the affected property. Hence, the
RTC and the CA, according to Napocor, both erred in not applying Section 3A of RA No. 6395.

Napocor further argues that even assuming that spouses Zabala are entitled to the full market value of their property, the award of
₱150.00 per square meter as just compensation lacks basis because the recommendation of the Commissioners is not supported by
documentary evidence.

Ruling: The petition is partially meritorious. Section 3A of RA No. 6395 cannot restrict the constitutional power of the courts to
determine just compensation.

In insisting that the just compensation cannot exceed 10% of the market value of the affected property, Napocor relies heavily on
Section 3A of RA No. 6395.

Sec. 3A. In acquiring private property…

(b) With respect to the acquired right-of-way easement over the land or portion thereof, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the market
value declared by the owner...

Just compensation has been defined as "the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The
measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner’s loss. " The payment of just compensation for private property taken for public use is
guaranteed no less by our Constitution and is included in the Bill of Rights. As such, no legislative enactments or executive issuances
can prevent the courts from determining whether the right of the property owners to just compensation has been violated. It is a
judicial function that cannot "be usurped by any other branch or official of the government."

In National Power Corporation v. Bagui, where the same petitioner also invoked the provisions of Section 3A of RA No. 6395, we
held that:

Section 3A-(b) of R.A. No. 6395, as amended, is not binding on the Court. It has been repeatedly emphasized that the determination
of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function and that any valuation for just compensation laid down in the
statutes may serve only as a guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation but it may not substitute the
court’s own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount.

Reiterated in Republic v. Lubinao, National Power Corporation v. Tuazon and National Power Corporation v. Saludares and continues
to be the controlling doctrine. In all these cases, Napocor likewise argued that it is liable to pay the property owners for the easement
of right-of-way only and not the full market value of the land traversed by its transmission lines. But we uniformly held in those cases
that since the high-tension electric current passing through the transmission lines will perpetually deprive the property owners of the
normal use of their land, it is only just and proper to require Napocor to recompense them for the full market value of their property.

The just compensation of ₱150.00 per square meter as fixed by the RTC is notsupported by evidence.

It has likewise been our consistent ruling that just compensation cannot be arrived at arbitrarily. Several factors must be considered,
such as, but not limited to, acquisition cost, current market value of like properties, tax value of the condemned property, its size,
shape, and location. But before these factors can be considered and given weight, the same must be supported by documentary
evidence.

In Republic v. Santos, we ruled that a commissioners’ land valuation which is not based on any documentary evidence is manifestly
hearsay and should be disregarded by the court.

The same ruling was arrived at in National Power Corporation v. Diato-Bernal, where we overturned the ruling of the trial court and
the CA adopting the findings of the commissioners sans supporting documentary evidence. Thus:

Under Section 8, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the trial court may accept or reject, whether in whole or in part, the commissioners’
report which is merely advisory and recommendatory in character. It may also recommit the report or set aside the same and appoint
new commissioners. In the case before us, insofar as just compensation is concerned, we cannot sustain the RTC’s Partial Decision for
want of documentary support.

Lastly, it should be borne in mind that just compensation should be computed based on the fair value of the subject property at the
time of its taking or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. Since in this case the filing of the eminent domain case came
ahead of the taking, just compensation should be based on the fair market value of spouses Zabala’s property at the time of the filing
of Napocor’s Complaint on October 27, 1994.