534 Phil. 448
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
A) The proposed land valuations were evaluated and analyzed using the joint appraisal report on fair market value of lands by Cuervo Appraisal, Inc., Development Bank of the Philippines, and the Land Bank of the Philippines and the fair market values established by the respective Provincial Appraisal Committee (PAC) of Zambales, Pangasinan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga and Bulacan as well as the City Appraisal Committee (CAC) of San Carlos and Cabanatuan.On January 15, 1998, the NPC filed a complaint[10] for eminent domain in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan against Maria and other landowners. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 28-M-98. According to NPC, in order to construct and maintain its Northwestern Luzon Transmission Line Project (San Manuel-San Jose 500 KV Transmission Line Project), it was necessary to acquire several lots in the Municipalities of San Jose del Monte and Norzagaray, Bulacan for an easement of right of way in the total area of more or less 35,288.5 sq m. The owners of the affected areas and their corresponding assessed values are:
B) For lot acquisition, adopt PAC or CUERVO Appraisal, whichever is lower; if there is a problem of acceptance, refer same to the Board;
C) For easement over agricultural lands, adopt median or average if there are several amounts involved; and
D) Always oppose any proposals for conversion of agricultural lands.[9]
OWNER/ | LOT/ BLK. NO. | TAX DEC. NO. | TITLE NO. | TOTAL AREA | AREA AFFECTED IN SQ. M. | ASSESSED VALUE OF AREA AFFECTED | CLASSIFI-CATION OF LAND |
Ma. Mendoza San Pedro rep. by Vicente San Pedro | 2076 | 00386 | | 122,821.32 | 17,195 | P 18,555.75 | Agricultural |
| | | 10,000 | 6,565 | P147,712.50 | Residential | |
Lorenza Manuel / Sps. Raul & Edna Lagula | 1250 | 96- 21017- 00084 | T- 28392- P-(M) | 5,700 | 51,666.5 | P 13,481.03 | Agricultural |
Sps. Segundo & Maxima Manuel / Sps. Raul & Edna Lagula | 1251 | 96- | P-3965 (M) | 6,362 | 6,362 | P 16,210.00 | Agricultural |
Lot No. | Tax Dec. No. | Total Area | Area Affected in sq. m. | Classification |
2076 | 01337 | 122,821.32 10,000.00 | 17,195 6,565 | Agricultural |
(1) The residential lot of Vicente San Pedro is not affected by NPC's project in its entirety. Around 2,000 sq. m. remains on each side of the residential lot. There are no existing structures or improvements on said residential lot, which is situated along the all-weather (gravel) road. Defendants are afraid to utilize the said remaining portions for residential purposes because of the reported constant loud buzzing and exploding sounds emanating from the towers and transmission lines, especially on rainy days. The two children of Vicente San Pedro had wanted to construct their residential houses on said land, but decided against it now because of fear that the large transmission lines looming not far above their land and the huge tower in front of their lot will affect their safety and health. Moreover, there is a slim chance now that somebody will still buy the remaining portions on each side of the residential lot affected by the project, to the damage of the defendant, both as to future actual use of the land and financial gains to be derived therefrom.IV. Available Data
(2) Likewise only a portion, or 17,195 sq. m. of the 122,821.32 square meter agricultural land, is affected by the transmission line project. It was not planted with palay at the time of the inspection. According to the defendants, their farm helpers are already afraid to work on the land because of the buzzing and cracking sounds coming from the tower and transmission lines.
(3) The site is located in a highly developed area about 1.5 kms. away from Norzagaray Municipal Building. The vast land owned by Jesus Is Lord congregation is on the same side of the road as subject property. Opposite the road is an ongoing resort project, the Falcon Crest Resort about - kilometers away, and the proposed Catholic Retreat House about 200 meters away. Attached as Annex "C" is the Location Plan of said lot.
(1) Based on the Zoning Certificate issued by the Municipal Mayor, subject parcel of land has been classified as residential pursuant to the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan of local government unit. Copy of said Zoning Certificate is hereto attached as Annex "D."
(2) Based on the BIR Zonal Valuation attached as Annex "E," subject land has a zonal value of P60.00/sq. m. for residential and P30.00/sq. m. for agricultural lot. However, it is common knowledge that zonal valuation provided by BIR cannot be made as basis for the purpose of determining just compensation in eminent domain cases because it is only for the purpose of computing internal revenue taxes.
(3) Opinion values gathered by the Provincial Assessor on the price of the property are as follows:Residential - P1,075.00 / sq. m.
Agricultural - P 643.00 / sq. m.
The summary of Opinion Values is hereto attached as Annex "F."
(4) There are no available sales data on properties within the vicinity of subject land for the years 1996 and 1997, approximate time of the taking.
IV. Recommendation
The Commissioners, after considering the location of the subject property in a highly developed area and accessibility thru the all-weather road (gravel); its potential for full development as shown by the existence of building projects in the vicinity; and the long- term effect the expropriation will have on the lives, comfort and financial condition of herein defendants, respectfully recommend the following amounts as payment for the affected portions of subject property.
I. FINDINGS
The ocular inspection and research conducted by the undersigned Commissioner on May 12, 1999 disclosed the following pertinent information and data:
1) The subject lots can be reached through a 1.4 km two lane concrete road, from the Sta. Maria- Norzagaray National Highway intersection at Poblacion, Norzagaray, Bulacan (refer to Annex "B");
2) The low lying northern portion of the property is presently used as riceland and the rest planted with assorted trees (refer to Annex "C," pictures);
3) The property is a portion of hill in the area with sides sloping downward on the northern eastern boundaries (refer to Annex "C");
4) There is no visible structural development in the area except for:
a) a two lane concrete road adjacent to the property at the northwest boundaries going to San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan;
b) newly constructed steel towers of NPC;
c) barbed wire fence with wooden post covering the northwestern portion of the lot adjacent to the concrete road to San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan and a bamboo fence that covers the southern portion (refer to Annex "C"); and
d) residential house approximately 200 meters from affected area.
5) During the ocular inspection, it is noted that they still use the affected area for agricultural purposes;
6) The Falcon Crest Resort is approximately 1 km. from the affected property;
7) Price data gathered are as follows (in square meter unless specified)
| Agri-Orchard (Interior) | Riceland Unirrigated (Interior) | Subd. along Sta. Maria (Garay) | Res'l | Agr'l |
Provincial Appraisal Committee - Bulacan (Res. No. 97-005) (Annex "D") | P600.00 | P400.00 | |||
NP Board Resolution No. 97-246 (Annex "E") | P89.00 | P80.00 | P230.00 | ||
Cuervo Appraisers, Inc. (Annex "F") | P890,000/ha. | P800,000/ha. | P230.00[21] |
On October 28, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment,[23] declaring as well-grounded, fair and reasonable the compensation for the property as recommended by Atty. Baltazar and Engr. Cruz. The fallo of the RTC decision reads:
Eight Hundred Two Thousand Three
Hundred Sixty Eight Pesos and 50/100
(P802,368.50)- Payment for damaged
crops/plants/treesOne Hundred Sixty Two Thousand
Eight Hundred Sixty Five Pesos and
65/100 (P162,865.65)- Payment for structures One Million Five Hundred Nine Thousand
Nine Hundred Fifty Pesos (P1,509,950.00)- Payment for residential
portion of lotOne Hundred Fifty One Thousand
Six Hundred Ninety One Pesos and
60/100 (P151,691.60)- Easement fee for
agricultural portion of lotThirteen Thousand Three Hundred Ninety
Eight and 95/100 (P13,398.95)[22]- Tower Occupancy Fee
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby orders the above-described 5,700-square meter lot from Lot No. 1250 of defendants Spouse (sic) Raul (sic) and the afore-described 6,362-square meter lot from Lot No. 1251 of same defendants, subject to the covering Compromise Agreements; and the above-described 17,195-square meter lot from Lot No. 2076 of defendant Maria Mendoza San Pedro, CONDEMNED and/or EXPROPRIATED for the construction and maintenance of plaintiff's Northwestern Luzon Transmission Line Project (San Manuel - San Jose 500 KV Transmission Line Project), a project for public purpose.On November 19, 1999, the heirs of Maria San Pedro filed a Manifestation and Motion[25] for the partial reconsideration of the decision on the ground that the court failed to include in its decision the just compensation for the 6,565-square-meter residential portion of their land, with prayer for attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount to be awarded to them.
Accordingly, this Court hereby fixes the just compensation for the expropriated lots, as follows:
OWNERS LOT NO. AREA
EXPROPRIATED PRICE/
S.Q. METER JUST
COMPEN-
SATIONSps. Raul
& Edna
Lagula-1250 5,700 sq. m - P499.00 - 2,844,300.- Sps. Raul
& Edna
Lagula1251 6,362 sq. m. - 499.00 - 2,174,638.- Ma. Mendoza
San Pedro her heirs-2076 17,195 sq. m. - 800.00 - 3,756,000.-
Hence, plaintiff is ordered to pay, as soon as possible, herein defendants the just compensation enumerated above for their respective lots aforementioned. For this purpose, plaintiff may withdraw the sum of money deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines or any other banks pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, as amended by P.D. No. 42.
FURTHER, defendants are ordered to clear and vacate the lots in question within 30 days from receipt hereof and to surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff.
The fees for the 3 Commissioners of the Appraisal Committee in the sum of P6,000.00 for the Chairman and P5,000.00 each for the 2 members, shall be paid by the plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.[24]
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby:
1. Grants the motion of defendant Maria Mendoza San Pedro and thus orders that the 1st paragraph of page 8 of the Decision be amended to read as follows:
"Plaintiff is expropriating portions of defendants" above-described properties to give way to the construction and maintenance of its Northern Luzon Transmission Line Project (San Manuel - San Jose 500 KV Transmission Line Project), a project for public purpose. The area of the lots sought to be expropriated from the lot of defendant Maria Mendoza San Pedro, represented by her heirs, are 17,195 square meters more or less of agricultural land and 6,565 square meters of residential land, while the area of the land sought to be expropriated from the two lots of defendants Sps. Raul and Edna Lagula are only 5,166.50 square meters, more or less, from Lot No. 1250 and 6,363 (sic) square meters, more or less, from Lot No. 1251.
Furthermore, the second paragraph of the dispositive portion of the Decision should be amended as follows:
"Accordingly, this Court hereby fixes the just compensation for the expropriated lots, as follows:
OWNERS | LOT NO. | AREA EXPROPRIATED | PRICE/ S.Q. METER | JUST COMPEN- SATION |
Sps. Raul & Edna Lagula | 1250 | 5,700 sq. m | P499.00 | P2,844,300. |
Sps. Raul & Edna Lagula | 1251 | 6,362 sq. m. | 499.00 | 3,174,638.00 |
Ma. Mendoza San Pedro her heirs | 2076 | 17,195 sq. m. | 499.00 | 8,580,305.00 |
Ma. Mendoza San Pedro her heirs | | 6,565 sq. m. | 800.00 | 5,252,00.00 |
2. Denies the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.On September 28, 2005, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the appeal. The CA ruled that the July 12, 1999 majority report was based on uncontroverted facts, supported by documentary evidence and confirmed by the commissioners' ocular inspection of the subject properties. To arrive at a reasonable estimate of just compensation, the commissioners considered factors such as the location, the most profitable likely use of the remaining area, size, shape, accessibility, as well as listings of other properties within the vicinity. Citing National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation,[30] the CA found as unpersuasive NPC's argument that it should only pay an easement fee. It ruled that considering the nature and effect of the installation of power lines, the limitations on the use of land for an indefinite period deprives the owner of its normal use. The fallo of the CA decision reads:
SO ORDERED.[28]
NPC appealed the amended decision to the CA, asserting that:
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FIXING P800.00 AND P499.00 PER SQUARE METER AS JUST COMPENSATION FOR APPELLEE'S 6,565 SQUARE METERS OF RESIDENTIAL LAND AND 17,195 SQUARE METERS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, RESPECTIVELY.[29]
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and Order dated 28 October 1999 and 6 June 2001, respectively, are AFFIRMED.NPC filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[32] which the CA denied in its Resolution[33] dated December 22, 2005; hence, the instant petition based on the following ground:
SO ORDERED.[31]
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR WHEN IT UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT FIXING THE JUST COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENT'S 6,565 SQ. METERS OF RESIDENTIAL LAND AND 17,195 SQUARE METERS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, AT PHP800.00 AND PHP499.00 PER SQUARE METER RESPECTIVELY, INSTEAD OF THE EASEMENT FEE AS PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT AND PROVIDED UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6395, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED NPC CHARTER.[34]The CA found no reversible error in the trial court's finding of just compensation. Inasmuch as the determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function and factual findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and reviewable only when the case falls within the recognized exceptions, which does not obtain in this case, we see no reason to disturb the factual findings as to the valuation of the subject property.[35]The Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
Various factors can come into play in the valuation of specific properties singled out for expropriation. The values given by provincial assessors are usually uniform for very wide areas covering several barrios or even an entire town with the exception of the poblacion. Individual differences are never taken into account. The value of land is based on such generalities as its possible cultivation for rice, corn, coconuts, or other crops. Very often land described as "cogonal" has been cultivated for generations. Buildings are described in terms of only two or three classes of building materials and estimates of areas are more often inaccurate than correct. Tax values can serve as guides but cannot be absolute substitutes for just compensation.Conformably with the rulings of this Court, the majority report took into account the most profitable likely use of the remaining area; and the size, shape, accessibility, as well as listings of other properties within the vicinity.[49]
To say that the owners are estopped to question the valuations made by assessors since they had the opportunity to protest is illusory. The overwhelming mass of land owners accept unquestioningly what is found in the tax declarations prepared by local assessors or municipal clerks for them. They do not even look at, much less analyze, the statements. The idea of expropriation simply never occurs until a demand is made or a case filed by an agency authorized to do so.
It is violative of due process to deny to the owner the opportunity to prove that the valuation in the tax documents is unfair or wrong. And it is repulsive to basic concepts of justice and fairness to allow the haphazard work of a minor bureaucrat or clerk to absolutely prevail over the judgment of a court promulgated only after expert commissioners have actually viewed the property, after evidence and arguments pro and con have been presented, and after all factors and considerations essential to a fair and just determination have been judiciously evaluated.[48]
Indeed, expropriation is not limited to the acquisition of real property with a corresponding transfer of title or possession. The right-of-way easement resulting in a restriction or limitation on property rights over the land traversed by transmission lines, as in the present case, also falls within the ambit of the term "expropriation." As explained in National Power Corporation v. Gutierrez, viz:
The trial court's observation shared by the appellate court show that "x x x While it is true that plaintiff [is] only after a right-of-way easement, it nevertheless perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as manifested by the imposition by the plaintiff upon defendants that below said transmission lines no plant higher than three (3) meters is allowed. Furthermore, because of the high-tension current conveyed through said transmission lines, danger to life and limbs that may be caused beneath said wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to cap it all, plaintiff only pays the fee to defendants once, while the latter shall continually pay the taxes due on said affected portion of their property."
The foregoing facts considered, the acquisition of the right-of-way easement falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain. Such conclusion finds support in similar cases of easement of right-of- way where the Supreme Court sustained the award of just compensation for private property condemned for public use (See National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 665, 1984; Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 102 SCRA 597, 1981). The Supreme Court, in Republic of the Philippines v. PLDT, thus held that:
"Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why said power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of title and possession. It is unquestionable that real property may, through expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right-of-way."
In the case at bar, the easement of right-of-way is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain. Considering the nature and effect of the installation of the 230 KV Mexico-Limay transmission lines, the limitation imposed by NPC against the use of the land for an indefinite period deprives private respondents of its ordinary use.[55]Similarly, in this case, the commissioners' observation on the reported constant loud buzzing and exploding sounds emanating from the towers and transmission lines, especially on rainy days; the constant fear on the part of the landowners that the large transmission lines looming not far above their land and the huge tower in front of their lot will affect their safety and health; and the slim chance that no one would be interested to buy the remaining portions on each side of the residential lot affected by the project, to the damage of the landowners, both as to future actual use of the land and financial gains to be derived therefrom, makes the instant case fall within the ambit of expropriation.