recent jurisprudence on expropriation

7/22/2019 Recent Jurisprudence on Expropriation

1/10

Recent Jurisprudence onExpropriation


2/10


3/10

Curata vs. Philippine Ports Authority, GR. No. 154211-12,

2009

In Republic v. Gingoyon,[109] on the issue of how much

must the government pay by way of initial deposit, the

Court, after positing the applicability of RA 8974 to the

expropriation of NAIA Passenger Terminal III (NAIA III),stated the observation that the appropriate standard of

just compensationinclusive of the manner of payment

thereof and the initial compensation to the lot owners

is a substantive, not merely a procedural, matter.

In Lintag v. National Power Corporation,[110]we reiteratedthat RA 8974 is a substantive law that cannot be applied

retroactively


4/10

Tinio vs. NPC, GR. No. 160923, 2011

It is settled that the nature and character of the land at the

time of its taking is the principal criterion for determining how

much just compensation should be given to the landowner.[10]

Hence, the argument of the Tinios that the subject propertyshould benefit from the subsequent classification of its

adjoining properties as industrial lands is, likewise, untenable.The Court, in a number of cases,[11] has enunciated the

principle that it would be injustice on the part of theexpropriator where the owner would be given undue

incremental advantages arising from the use to which the

government devotes the property expropriated.[10]


5/10

NPC vs. Teresita Diato-Bernal, GR. No. 180979, 2013

It is evident that the above conclusions are highly speculative and devoidof any actual and reliable basis. First, the market values of the subject

propertysneighboring lots were mere estimates and unsupported by any

corroborative documents, such as sworn declarations of realtors in the

area concerned, tax declarations or zonal valuation from the Bureau of

Internal Revenue for the contiguous residential dwellings and commercialestablishments. The report also failed to elaborate on how and by howmuch the community centers and convenience facilities enhanced the

value of respondentsproperty.[23]Finally, the market sales data and price

listings alluded to in the report were not even appended thereto.

As correctly invoked by NAPOCOR, a commissionersreport of land priceswhich is not based on any documentary evidence is manifestly hearsay and

should be disregarded by the court.[23] See National Power Corporationv. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 156093, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 56.


6/10

NPC vs. Sps. Zabala, GR. No. 173520, 2013

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 besupported by documentary evidence.

In Republic v. Santos,29 we ruled that acommissioners land valuation which is not based on

any documentary evidence is manifestly hearsay and

should be disregarded by the court,


7/10

NPC vs. Tuazon, et al, GR. No. 193023, 2011

In sum, we categorically hold that private land taken for the

installation of transmission lines is to be paid the full market value

of the land as just compensation. We so ruled in National Power

Corporation v. Benjamin Ong Co,[40] and we reiterate this ruling

today:

As earlier mentioned, Section 3A of R.A. No. 6395, as amended,

substantially provides that properties which will be traversed by

transmission lines will only be considered as easements and just

compensation for such right of way easement shall not exceed 10

percent of the market value. However, this Court has repeatedly

ruled that when petitioner takes private property to construct

transmission lines, it is liable to pay the full market value upon

proper determination by the courts.


8/10

NPC vs. Heirs of Makabangkit Sangkay, GR. No. 165828, 2011

We rule that the prescriptive period provided under Section

3(i) of Republic Act No. 6395 is applicable only to an action fordamages, and does not extend to an action to recover just

compensation like this case. Consequently, NPC cannot therebybar the right of the Heirs of Macabangkit to recover just

compensation for their land.

The action to recover just compensation from the State or itsexpropriating agency differs from the action for damages. The

former, also known as inverse condemnation, has the objectiveto recover the value of property taken in fact by the

governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise ofthe power of eminent domain has been attempted by the

taking agency.


9/10

Republic vs. Hon. Judge Samson-Tatad, GR. No. 187677, 2013

Thesole issue in this case, i.e., whether or not the court that

hears the expropriation case has also jurisdiction to determine,

in the same proceeding, the issue of ownership of the land

sought to be condemned, must be resolved in the affirmative.

That the court is empowered to entertain the conflicting claimsof ownership of the condemned or sought to be condemnedproperty and adjudge the rightful owner thereof, in the same

expropriation case, is evident from Section 9 of the RevisedRule 69, xxx

If at all, this situation is akin to ejectment cases in which a

court is temporarily authorized to determine ownership, if onlyto determine who is entitled to possession. This is not

conclusive, and it remains open to challenge through properactions.


10/10

End of Part 2

recent jurisprudence on expropriation

Documents