NAPOCOR v Heirs of Borbon, CA
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals
RTC ruled in favor of the heirs of Borbon – ordered Napocor to pay for the entire property at
550/sq meter
CA affirmed with modification – ordered Napocor to pay for the portion of the property
occupied which is 6326 sq meters at a rate of 550/sq meter
SC dismissed the expropriation proceeding
Facts:
NAPOCOR entered a property located in Barangay San Isidro, Batangas City in order to
construct and maintain transmission lines. Respondents’ heirs of Saturnino Q. Borbon
owned the property. NAPOCOR filed a complaint for expropriation in the Regional Trial
Court in Batangas City (RTC), seeking the acquisition of an easement of right of way over a
portion of the property.
The respondents staunchly maintained that NAPOCOR had not negotiated with them before
entering the property and that the entry was done without their consent; nonetheless, they
tendered no objection to NAPOCOR’s entry provided it would pay just compensation not
only for the portion sought to be expropriated but for the entire property whose potential was
greatly diminished, if not totally lost, due to the project.
During the pendency of an appeal, NAPOCOR filed a Manifestation and Motion to
Discontinue Expropriation Proceedings, informing that the parties failed to reach an amicable
agreement; that the property sought to be expropriated was no longer necessary for public
purpose because of the intervening retirement of the transmission lines installed on the
respondents’ property; that because the public purpose for which such property would be
used thereby ceased to exist, the proceedings for expropriation should no longer continue,
and the State was now duty-bound to return the property to its owners; and that the
dismissal or discontinuance of the expropriation proceedings was in accordance with Section
4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
Issue: Whether or not the expropriation proceedings should be discontinued or dismissed
pending appeal.
Ruling:
The dismissal of the proceedings for expropriation at the instance of NAPOCOR is proper,
but, conformably with Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the dismissal or
discontinuance of the proceedings must be upon such terms as the court deems just and
equitable.
But the exercise of such right is not unlimited, for two mandatory requirements should
underlie the Government’s exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely:
(1) that it is for a particular public purpose; and
2) that just compensation be paid to the property owner.
These requirements partake the nature of implied conditions that should be complied with to
enable the condemnor to keep the property expropriated.
It is essential that the element of public use of the property be maintained throughout the
proceedings for expropriation.
Public use is the fundamental basis for the action for expropriation; hence, NAPOCOR’s
motion to discontinue the proceedings is warranted and should be granted.
More particularly, with respect to the element of public use, the expropriator should commit
to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition for expropriation filed,
failing which, it should file another petition for the new purpose. If not, it is then incumbent
upon the expropriator to return the said property to its private owner, if the latter desires to
reacquire the same. Otherwise, the judgment of expropriation suffers an intrinsic flaw, as it
would lack one indispensable element for the proper exercise of the power of eminent
domain, namely, the particular public purpose for which the property will be devoted.
Accordingly, the private property owner would be denied due process of law, and the
judgment would violate the property owner’s right to justice, fairness and equity.
Verily, the retirement of the transmission lines necessarily stripped the expropriation
proceedings of the element of public use. To continue with the expropriation proceedings
despite the definite cessation of the public purpose of the project would result in the rendition
of an invalid judgment in favor of the expropriator due to the absence of the essential
element of public use.
In view of the discontinuance of the proceedings and the eventual return of the property to
the respondents, there is no need to pay “just compensation” to them because their property
would not be taken by NAPOCOR. Instead of full market value of the property, therefore,
NAPOCOR should compensate the respondents for the disturbance of their property rights
from the time of entry until the time of restoration of the possession by paying to them actual
or other compensatory damages.
