f'V~

... _

3aepublic of tbe flbilippines

~upreme <!Court
;!lflanila

SECOND DIVISION

NATIONAL POWER G.R. No.172507

CORPORATION,
Petitioner, Present:

CARPIO,J., Chairperson,
BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
-versus- MENDOZA, and
LEONEN,JJ.

Prom5511t~u)6 ~
~kcINIAASO~~~ondents. ---~-~-------------~~~----x
SOQUE AND d
s MARGARITO A

x-----------------------------------------------

DECISION

LEONEN,J.:

Article III, Section 9 1 of the Constitution provides a substantive

guarantee that private property that is taken by the state for public use should
be paid for with just compensation. If the state does not agree with the
property owner on a price, the state, through the competent government
agency, should file the proper expropriation action under Rule 67 of the
Revised Rules of Court.

In case of a taking without the proper expropriation action filed, the

property owner may file its own action to question the propriety of the
taking or to compel the payment of just compensation. Among these inverse
condemnation actions .is a complaint for payment of just compensation and
CONST., art. III, sec. 9 provides:
I
SECTION 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
 Decision 2 G.R. No. 172507

damages.

When an inverse condemnation is filed, the provisions for the

appointment of commissioners under Rule 32-not Sections 5, 6, 7, or 8 of
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court-will be followed.

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 filed by the National

Power Corporation to nullify and set aside the November 21, 2005 Decision3
and May 3, 2006 Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CV No.
76313. The assailed. Decision affirmed with modification the judgment of
Branch 31 of the Regional Trial Court, Calbayog City, which, in turn,
directed the National Power Corporation to pay the value of the 4,352-
square-meter portion of Spouses Margarito and Tarcinia Asoque's (Spouses
Asoque) land utilized in its Leyte-Luzon Transmission Line Project. 5 The
assailed Resolution denied the National Power Corporation's Motion for
R econs1"d erat1on.
. 6

Spouses Asoque are the registered owners of a parcel of coconut land

located in Barangay Bugtong, Calbayog City. The parcel of land has an area
of 59,099 square meters and is covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
2376. 7

Sometime in November 1995, the National Power Corporation entered

the Spouses Asoque's land to install transmission lines for its 350 KV Leyte-
Luzon HVDC Power Transmission Line Project. 8 The National Power
Corporation utilized 4,352 square meters for the project. 9

Spouses Asoque allege that beforehand, they were made to understand

that the National Power Corporation would pay them the value of the portion
of the land used and all improvements that would be destroyed for the
National Power Corporation's project. Io Spouses Asoque incurred actual
damages as a result of the National Power Corporation's cutting off some
coconut trees and other fruit- and non-fruit-bearing plants during the
construction. I I They were also prohibited from introducing on the 4,352-

Rollo, pp. 7-31.

Id. at 32--42. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in by
I
Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. of the Twentieth Division, Court
of Appeals, Cebu.
4
Id. at 43--44. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in by
Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. of the Twentieth Division, Court
of Appeals, Cebu.
Id. at 41.
6
Id. at 44.
7
RTC records, p. 114.
Id. at 2, Complaint.
9
Id.
IO Id.
11
Rollo, p. 33.
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 172507

square-meter area any improvement that could rise by a few meters from the
ground. 12

Upon Spouses Asoque's demand for just compensation, the National

Power Corporation only paid for the improvements destroyed and refused to
pay for the actual value of the 4,352-square-meter area utilized for the
project. 13 The National Power Corporation claimed that it was only liable to
pay for right of way at 10% of the market value under Section 3-A of
Republic Act No. 6395, 14 as amended. 15

On September 20, 1999, Spouses Asoque filed before the Regional

Trial Court of Calbayog City a Complaint16 for payment of just
compensation and damages against the National Power Corporation. The
case was docketed as Civil Case No. 737 and was raffled to Branch 31.

In its Answer 17 dated February 7, 2000, the National Power

Corporation denied Spouses Asoque's claims that it had illegally utilized
their property. It alleged that it entered the property with Spouses Asoque's
consent, as shown by the acknowledgment receipt 18 for P9,897.00 as
payment for damaged improvements and waiver of claims to improvements
damaged. 19 By virtue of the acknowledgement receipt and the waiver, the
National Power Corporation claimed that there was no more need for it to

12
13
14
Id.
RTC records, p. 2.
Republic Act No. 6395 is otherwise known as the Charter of the National Power Corporation. Rep.
I
Act No. 6395, as amended by Pres. Decree No. 938, sec. 3-A provides:
Sec. 3-A - In acquiring private property or private property rights through expropriation proceedings
where the land or portion thereof will be traversed by the transmission lines, only a right-of-way
easement thereon shall be acquired when the principal purpose for which such land is actually devoted
will not be impaired, and where the land itself or portion thereof will be needed for the projects or
works, such land or portion thereof as necessaryshall be acquired.
In determining the just compensation of the property or property sought to be acquired through
expropriation proceedings, the same shall -
(a) With respect to the acquired land or portion thereof, not exceed the market value declared by the
owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property, or such market value as
determined by the assessor, whichever is lower.
(b) With respect to the acquired right-of-way easement over the land or portion thereof, not to exceed
ten percent (I 0%) of the market value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having legal
interest in the property, or such market value as determined by the assessor whichever is lower.
In addition to the just compensation for easement ofright-of-way, the owner of the land or owner of the
improvement, as the case may be, shall be compensated for the improvements actually damaged by the
construction and maintenance of the transmission lines, in an amount not exceeding the market value
thereof as declared by the owner or administrator, or anyone having legal interest in the property, or
such market value as determined by the assessor whichever is lower; Provided, that in cases any
buildings, houses and similar structures are actually affected by the right-of-way for the transmission
lines, their transfer, if feasible, shall be effected at the expense of the Corporation; Provided, further,
that such market value prevailing at the time the Corporation gives notice to the landowner or
administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property, to the effect that his land or portion
thereof is needed for its projects or works shall be used as basis to determine the just compensation
therefor. (Emphasis supplied)
15
Rollo, p. I 06.
16
RTC records, pp. 1-5.
17
Id. at 29-34.
18
Id. at 35.
19
Id. at 36.
 Decision 4 G.R. No. 172507

institute an expropriation proceeding. 20

When Civil Case No. 73 7 was called for pre-trial on May 8, 2000, the
case was ordered dismissed by the trial court due to the non-appearance of
both parties and their counsel. 21 However, the case was reinstated after
Spouses Asoque's counsel explained to the trial court the reason why he
arrived late. The pre-trial of the case was reset to May 24, 2000. 22

On May 24, 2000, the trial court, noting the absence of the National
Power Corporation and its counsel, allowed Spouses Asoque to present their
evidence ex parte before a court-appointed Commissioner. It simultaneously
dismissed the National Power Corporation's counterclaim. 23

On June 6, 2000, the trial court denied National Power Corporation's

Urgent Manifestation and Motion to Reset Pre-trial, finding it to have been
filed out of time and also moot and academic. 24 National Power
Corporation's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the trial
court's Order dated June 21, 2000. 25

"On June 22, July 24[,] and August 28, 2000, Spouses Asoque
presented evidence ex parte before Atty. Ferdinand S. Arpon, Branch Clerk
of Court, who was appointed Commissioner by the trial court." 26 Spouses
Asoque then filed their Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits 27 on
September 6, 2000, to which the National Power Corporation filed its
Comment/Objection28 on October 13, 2000, citing the inadmissibility of the
exhibits presented. 29

On July 20, 2001, the Commissioner submitted to the trial court his
Commissioner's Report dated July 19, 2001. 30 He recommended that the fair
market value of the land be placed at P800.00 per square meter and that the
schedule of prevailing market value of the trees, plants, and crops prepared
by the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist, Catbalogan, Samar be adopted
to compute the amount of compensation for the damaged improvements. 31

20
21
On August 21, 2001, the trial court received the National Power

Id. at 32.
I
Rollo, p. 34.
22
Id. at 111.
23
Id. at 111-112.
24
Id. at 112.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27
RTC records, pp. 108-113.
28
Id. at 150-151.
29
Rollo, pp. 112-114.
30
RTC records, pp. 156-164.
31
Rollo, pp. 114-115.
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 172507

Corporation's Comment/Opposition to Commissioner's ReEort, to which

Spouses Asoque filed their Rejoinder on September 20, 2001. 2

The National Power Corporation and Spouses Asoque filed their

respective memoranda on February 5, 2002 and April 1, 2002. Thereafter,
the case was deemed submitted for decision. 33

On June 25, 2002, the Regional Trial Court rendered the Decision34 in
favor of Spouses Asoque and ordered the National Power Corporation to pay
them the amounts of:

(1) P3,481,600.00 as just compensation of the land containing an

area of 4,352 square meters at P800.00 per square meter, with
legal interest from November 1995 until fully paid; and

(2) P158,369.00 as compensation for the improvements on the land,

with interest at the legal rate from November 1995 until fully
paid.

Aggrieved, the National Power Corporation filed an appeal before the

Court of Appeals. 35

The Court of Appeals denied36 the National Power Corporation's

appeal in its Decision dated November 21, 2005. It affirmed with
modification the Regional Trial Court Decision by deleting the amount of
P158,369.00 as compensation for the damaged improvements for lack of
legal and factual basis. 37

The Court of Appeals found no impropriety on the part of the

Regional Trial Court in allowing Spouses Asoque to present their evidence
ex parte and in appointing the Branch Clerk of Court as Commissioner to
receive Spouses Asoque's evidence ex parte. 38 It also found no irregularity
in the trial court's ad.option of the Commissioner's report/recommendation,
which was found to be comprehensive and supported by evidence. 39

Rejecting the National Power Corporation's stance that only an

easement of right of way was acquired at 10% of the market value under
32
33
34
Id. at 115.
Id. at 115-116.
I
RTC records, pp. 197-213. The Decision was penned by Acting Presiding Judge Rosario B. Bandai of
Branch 31, Regional Trial Court, Calbayog City.
35
Ro/lo,p.117.
36
Id. at 32-41.
37
Id. at 41.
38
Id. at 36-37.
39
Id. at 37-38.
 Decision 6 G.R. No. 172507

Section 3-A of Republic Act No. 6395, the Court of Appeals ruled that the
determination of just compensation is a judicial function and cannot be
diminished by Republic Act No. 6395, as amended. 40

Finally, the Court of Appeals found that Spouses Asoque have already
been properly compensated for the damaged improvements per disbursement
vouchers in the total amount of Pl 7,133.50, and Spouses Asoque failed to
present competent proof that they were entitled to an additional award of
actual damages. 41

The National Power Corporation moved for reconsideration, but the

Motion was denied in the Resolution dated May 3, 2006.

Hence, petitioner National Power Corporation filed the present

Petition, assigning the following errors purportedly committed by the
appellate court:

[1] The appellate court erred in affirming respondents' presentation of

evidence ex parte[;]

[2] The appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's appointment of a
commissioner, and validating the proceedings he conducted[;]

[3] The appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's directive to
petitioner NPC to compensate respondents for the value of the land
notwithstanding that only an easement thereon was acquired[;] [and]

[4] Assuming that petitioner NPC is liable to pay just compensation for the
subject property and the improvements thereon, the trial court nonetheless
erred in the determination of the values thereof. 42

This Court outright denied the Petition for lack of a verified statement
of material date of filing of the Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed
judgment under Rule 45, Sections 4(b) and 5, in relation to Rule 56, Section
43
5(d). However, on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, 44 this Court
reinstated45 the Petition and required respondents to comment.

Respondents Spouses Margarito and Tarcinia Asoque filed their .

46
Comments on October 25, 2006, and petitioner filed its Reply 47 on April
1
40
Id. at 38--40.
41
Id. at 40--41.
42
Id. at 19.
43
Id. at 47.
44
Id. at 48-54.
45
Id. at 56.
46
Id. at 57-Q6.
47
Id.at81-87.
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 172507

17, 2007. Pursuant to this Court's Resolution48 dated June 25, 2007,
petitioner and respondents filed their respective memoranda on December
14, 2007 49 and November 29, 2007. 50

On February 11, 2008, this Court noted the memoranda of the

parties. 51

Petitioner contends that it was not given a reasonable opportunity to

be heard, which is the essence of due process. 52 Only a very short notice
was given to its counsel to attend the pre-trial, even though petitioner's
lawyers were based in Cebu. 53 In contrast, respondents' counsel held office
in Catbalogan City, where the trial court sits. 54

The May 24, 2000 pre-trial setting was allegedly too close to May 8,
2000, the date of the Order that set it, as to afford petitioner a reasonable
opportunity to make arrangements for it. 55 The May 8, 2000 Order, which
was served by registered mail, was received by petitioner only on May 22,
2000, just two (2) days before the pre-trial on May 24, 2000. 56 By then, both
of petitioner's lawyers were out of town (one was in Manila and the other
was in San Isidro, Northern Samar) on official business. 57 Petitioner
contends that despite having been informed through the Urgent
Manifestation and Motion to Reset Pre-trial dated May 24, 2000 and the
Motion for Reconsideration dated June 8, 2000 of the reason for the failure
of petitioner's counsel to appear at the May 24, 2000 pre-trial, the trial court
refused to reconsider its default order; thus, the trial court deprived
petitioner of its right to due process. 58

Petitioner further argues that the trial court's appointment of a

commissioner and the latter's appraisal of the fair market value of the
property and the improvements made were defective and ultra vires. 59 It
contends that Rule 18, Section 2(f) of the Rules of Court does not give the
Commissioner such authority but merely allows him to assist in defining the
issues to be resolved during the trial. 60 Petitioner also points out that the
May 8, 2000 Order merely designated a commissioner to receive
respondents' evi~ence and nothing more. 61 There is likewise no showing

48
49
50
Id. at 88-89.
Id. at 104-128.
Id. at 130-143.
J
51
Id. at 148.
52
Id. at 118.
53
Id. at 119.
54 Id.
55
Id. at 119.
56
Id. at 119-120.
57
Id. at 120.
58 Id.
59
Id. at 121-122.
60
Id. at 121.
61
Id. at 122.
 Decision 8 G.R. No. 172507

that the Commissioner took an oath before performing his function, as

required by the Rules. 62

As to the third and fourth assigned errors, petitioner claims that it is

liable to pay only an easement fee under Section 3-A of its Charter, which is
computed as 10% of the fair market value of the affected portion of
respondents' land based on the valuation (P3.31 per square meter) specified
in Tax Declaration No. 96-03023-00104. 63 Petitioner contends that the three
(3) expropriation cases decided in 1997 by other branches of the Regional
Trial Court of Catbalogan City, which were cited by the trial court in
adopting the Commissioner's recommendation, were not reliable bases for
determining the fair market value of respondents' property. This is because
the parcels of land in the three (3) expropriation cases were located in other
barangays of Calbayog City and there is no showing that the decisions
therein have attained finality. 64 Finally, petitioner submits that the City
Assessor's valuation of the subject property appearing in Tax Declaration
No. 96-03023-00104 should prevail over that determined by the
Commissioner-the Branch Clerk of Court-who does not have the
expertise or competence to conduct property appraisals as required under
Rule 67, Section 5. 65

Respondents aver that the trial court was justified in allowing them to
present evidence ex parte because ( 1) petitioner and its counsel failed to
appear at the pre-trial on May 24, 2000; and (2) petitioner's Urgent
Manifestation and Motion to postpone the pre-trial setting on May 24, 2000
was filed late. 66 They add that due process was satisfied in the court a quo
as petitioner was aff9rded the fair and reasonable opportunity to defend its
side and to move for the reconsideration of the trial court ruling. 67

As to the appointment of the Branch Clerk of Court as Commissioner,

respondents aver that this was proper and sanctioned by the Rules; that the
Commissioner's preliminary determination of just compensation was merely
recommendatory and did not make the ex parte proceedings invalid; and that
the final determination of the amount of just compensation still rests on the
trial judge. 68

Lastly, respondents contend that Section 3-A of Republic Act No.

6395 cannot defeat the trial court's determination of the just compensation of
their property; that the determination of just compensation is a judicial
function; and that it has been ruled in previous cases that the acquisition of

62
63
Id.
I
Id. at 123-124.
64
Id. at 125-126.
65
Id. at 124-125.
66
Id. at 136-140.
67 Id.
68
Id. at 140-142.
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 172507

right-of-way easement is a taking under the power of eminent domain and

the owner is entitled to the money equivalent of the property expropriated. 69

The issues for resolution are:

First, whether petitioner was deprived of due process when

respondents were allowed to present evidence ex parte;

Second, whether the appraisal of the property was valid and the court-
appointed Commissioner exceeded his authority when he conducted an
appraisal of the property and recommended a valuation for just
compensation;

Third, whether petitioner should be made to pay simple easement fee

or full compensation for the land traversed by its transmission lines; and

Lastly, whether the trial court erred in its determination of the amount
of just compensation to be paid to respondents.

The Petition lacks merit.

The Regional Trial Court did not err in allowing respondents to

present their evidence ex parte. The action of the trial court is expressly
allowed under Rule 18, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Section 5 provides that if it is the defendant who fails to appear, then the
plaintiff may be allowed "to present his evidence ex parte and the court to
render judgment on the basis thereof." Petitioner's stance that it was
deprived of due process because it was not given the reasonable opportunity
to attend the second pre-trial setting is likewise untenable.

Petitioner and its counsel were absent during the first pre-trial setting
on May 8, 2000. Respondents' counsel attended, although he was late. Had
petitioner and its counsel appeared on the first setting, they would have been
reasonably notified then and there of the second pre-trial resetting on May
24, 2000 and would have had the opportunity to ask for a later date.
Nonetheless, petitioner's counsel should have tried to inquire from the court
the next schedule of the pre-trial.

Attendance by the party and its counsel during a pre-trial conference !

69 Id.
 Decision 10 G.R. No. 172507

is mandatory as expressly stated under Rule 18, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure. 70 Petitioner alleges that it filed a motion for
postponement of the first pre-trial setting. This notwithstanding, it was still
its duty to appear at the pre-trial first set on May 8, 2000. A motion for
postponement should never be presumed to be granted. 71

Petitioner does not refute respondents' argument that its Urgent

Manifestation and Motion, although dated May 24, 2000, was filed only one
(1) day after the scheduled pre-trial sought to be postponed, on May 25,
2000. The trial court was, therefore, justified in denying petitioner's motion
for postponement f9r having been filed out of time. A motion for
postponement should be filed on or before the lapse of the day sought to be
postponed. 72 In any case, "the matter of postponement of a hearing is
addressed to the sound discretion of the court [and] unless there is a grave
abuse of discretion in the exercise thereof the same should not be disturbed
. ,,73
on review.

Petitioner's counsel received the Regional Trial Court Order resetting

the pre-trial to May 24, 2000 on May 22, 2000. Assuming its counsel was
unable to appear at the second pre-trial setting, petitioner could and should
have sent a representative on May 24, 2000 to ask for postponement of the
second pre-trial setting. During the second pre-trial setting, it was not only
petitioner's counsel who failed to appear, but petitioner as well.

Under the circumstances, petitioner cannot claim that it was denied

70
RULES OF COURT, Rule 18, sec. 4 provides:
SECTION 4. Appearance of Parties. - It shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at
the pre-trial. The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor or
I
if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable
settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or
admissions of facts and of documents.
71
In re Presbitero, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 291 Phil. 387, 395-396 (1993) [Per J. Davide, Jr., Third
Division]. See also Heirs ofGayares v. Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corp., 691 Phil. 46, 55 (2012)
[Per J. Del Castillo, First Division] citing Ramos v. Dajoyag, Jr., 428 Phil. 267, 278 (2002) [Per J.
Mendoza, Second Division].
72
In Linis v. Rovira, 61 Phil. 137, 139 (1935) [Per J. Imperial, En Banc], the trial court denied the motion
for postponement of a hearing on the ground that it was presented out of time and the reason alleged
therein was insufficient. This Court affirmed the trial court, thus: "The postponement of the hearing of
a case, which had been previously set and of which the parties and their attorneys had already been
notified, is not an absolute right of the litigants nor of their attorneys. The granting of a motion for
postponement depends entirely upon the discretion of the courts, in the exercise of which all the
attending circumstances and the rights of all the parties appearing therein should be taken into account.
If the postponement would manifestly prejudice some of the parties, or, ifthe motion for postponement
had been presented too late to prevent them from notifying their witnesses not to appear, thus causing
them considerable trouble and expense, as probably would have happened in the present case, it is the
duty of the courts to deny it."
In Macabingkil v. People's Homesite and Housing Corp., 164 Phil. 328, 341 (1976) [Per J. Antonio,
Second Division]: "The&e provisions of the Rules of Court prescribing the time within which certain
acts must he done, or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the
prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial businesses. The time
can be extended only ifa motion for extension is filed within the time or period provided therefor."
73
Be/star Transportation, Inc. v. Board of Transportation, 260 Phil. 219, 223 (1990) [Per J. Gancayco,
First Division].
 Decision 11 G.R. No. 172507

due process. "Parties are presumed to have known the governing rules and
the consequences for the violation of such rules." 74 Moreover, the essence
of due process is an opportunity to be heard. Petitioner was given that
opportunity. Yet, it failed to appear at the two (2) pre-trial settings. A pre-
trial cannot be taken for granted for it serves a vital objective: the
simplification and expedition of the trial, if not its dispensation. Non-
appearance of a party may only be excused for a valid cause. We see none
in this case.

In Air Philippines Corporation v. International Business Aviation

Services Philippines, Jnc., 75 the petitioner and its counsel did not appear
during the scheduled pre-trials and did not file a pre-trial brief even after
filing a motion to extend the date for filing. Hence, the respondent was
allowed to adduce its evidence ex parte. The petitioner moved for
reconsideration, but the motion was denied. After the ex parte presentation
of the respondent's evidence, the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of
the respondent. The petitioner moved for new trial arguing that it was
deprived of its day in court due to the gross negligence of its counsel, but the
trial court denied the motion. Affirming the trial court, this Court ruled that
the petitioner and its counsel's lapses showed a plain disregard of the duty
imposed by law. Ruling that there was no denial of due process, this Court
held:

"The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable

opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support
of one's defense." Where the opportunity to be heard, either through
verbal arguments or pleadings, is accorded, and the party can "present its
side" or defend its "interest in due course," "there is no denial of
procedural due process." Petitioner has been given its chance, and after
being declared in default, judgment has not been automatically "rendered
in favor of the non-defaulting party." Rather, judgment was made only
after carefully weighing the evidence presented. Substantive and adjective
laws do complement each other "in the just and speedy resolution of the
dispute between the parties." 76 (Citations omitted)

Similarly, petitioner in this case was not deprived of its day in court.
Petitioner was able to file a Motion for Reconsideration, participate in
further proceedings, and was allowed to submit its objections to respondents'
evidence and to the Commissioner's recommendation before the trial court
rendered judgment. It must, therefore, bear the consequences of its lapses. J

74
Paredes v. Verano, 535 Phil. 274, 285 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division].
75
481 Phil. 366 (2004) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
76
Id. at 386.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 172507

II

On the second issue, we likewise find petitioner's arguments

untenable.

The procedure of designating the clerk of court as commissioner to

receive and report evidence to the court is likewise sanctioned by Rule 32,
Sections 2 and 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 3 of the
same Rule, speaking of the authority that may be granted to a Commissioner,
provides:

RULE32
Trial by Commissioner

SEC. 3. Order of reference; powers of the commissioner. - When a

reference is made, the clerk shall forthwith furnish the commissioner with
a copy of the order of reference. The order may specify or limit the
powers of the commissioner, and may direct him to report only upon
particular issues, or to do or perform particular acts, or to receive and
report evidence only, and may fix the date for beginning and closing the
hearings and for the filing of his report. Subject to the specifications and
limitations stated in the order, the commissioner has and shall exercise the
power to regulate the proceedings in every hearing before him and to do
all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient
performance of his duties under the order. He may issue subpoenas and
subpoenas duces tecum, swear witnesses, and unless otherwise provided in
the order of reference, he may rule upon the admissibility of evidence.
The trial or hearing before him shall proceed in all respects as it would if
held before the court.

Furthermore, after the hearing before the Commissioner, the

Commissioner must file a written report, which may contain his or her
factual findings and conclusions of law:

RULE32
Trial by Commissioner

SEC. 9. Report of commissioner. - Upon the completion of the trial or

hearing or proceeding before the commissioner, he shall file with the court
his report in writing upon the matters submitted to him by the order of
reference. When his powers are not specified or limited, he shall set forth
I
his findings of fact and conclusions of law in his report. He shall attach
thereto all exhibits, affidavits, depositions, papers and the transcript, if
any, of the testimonial evidence presented before him.
 Decision 13 G.R. No. 172507

With respect to the proceedings in the court a quo, the Court of

Appeals observed that:

The report of the commissioner shows clearly that he received and

evaluated [respondents'] evidence which were adduced ex parte. His
preliminary determination of the just compensation of the property [in]
issue would not necessarily render invalid the ex parte proceedings
conducted by him. The valuations suggested by the commissioner as just
compensation for [respondents'] land that was utilized by [petitioner] were
merely recommendatory. The final determination of just compensation
was left to the court a quo as it rests within the exclusive domain of the
latter. Simply stated, the court a quo was still at liberty to reject or adopt
the recommendations of the commissioner. 77 (Emphasis in the original)

Hence, absent any express limitation in the order of reference, Branch

Clerk of Court Atty. Ferdinand S. Arpon, as the court-appointed
Commissioner, may make factual findings and recommendations on the
valuation of the property. Indeed, the Commissioner's recommendation
could have been necessarily rejected had it been an ultra vires act.

Besides, the proceedings before the Regional Trial Court were not for
expropriation-for which petitioner itself claims that there is no need-but
were for recovery of just compensation and damages initiated by
respondents. Hence, Rule 67, Section 5 on the ascertainment of the just
compensation to be paid was no longer applicable. A trial before
commissioners, for instance, was dispensable. 78

In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,79 the National

Irrigation Administration took possession of the property without the benefit
of expropriation proceedings. The property owner subsequently filed a case
for recovery of possession or its value and damages. This Court held that
Rule 67 presupposes a prior filing of a complaint by the expropriator for
eminent domain with the appropriate court. If no such complaint is filed, the
expropriator is considered to have violated procedural requirements and,
hence, waived the usual procedure prescribed in Rule 67. This includes the
appointment of commissioners to ascertain just compensation, thus:

NIA contends that it was deprived of due process when the trial
court determined the compensation due to respondent without the
assistance of commissioners. NIA refers to the procedure found in Section

77
78
5, Rule 67 of the 1964 Rules of Court applicable at the time[.]

Rollo, p. 37.
National Power Corporation v. Sta. Lora vda. De Capin, et al., 590 Phil. 665, 680 (2008) [Per J.
I
Chico-Nazario, Third Division]; National Power Corporation v. Bongbong, 549 Phil. 93, 109 (2007)
[Per J. Callejo, Sr., Third Division]; and National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals and
Antonino Pobre, 479 Phil. 850, 867 (2004) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
79
494 Phil. 494 (2005) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
 Decision 14 G.R. No. 172507

Rule 67, however, presupposes that NIA exercised its right of

eminent domain by filing a complaint for that purpose before the
appropriate court. Judicial determination of the propriety of the exercise
of the power of eminent domain and the just compensation for the subject
property then follows. The proceedings give the property owner the
chance to object to the taking of his property and to present evidence on its
value and on the consequential damage to other parts of his property.

Respondent was not given these opportunities, as NIA did not

observe the procedure in Rule 67. Worse, NIA refused to pay respondent
just compensation. The seizure of ones property without payment, even
though intended for public use, is a taking without due process of law and
a denial of the equal protection of the laws. NIA, not respondent,
transgressed the requirements of due process.

When a government agency itself violates procedural requirements,

it waives the usual procedure prescribed in Rule 67. This Court ruled in
the recent case of National Power Corporation (NPC) v. Court of
Appeals, to wit:

We have held that the usual procedure in the determination

ofjust compensation is waived when the government itself
initially violates procedural requirements. NPC's taking of
Pobre's property without filing the appropriate
expropriation proceedings and paying him just
compensation is a transgression of procedural due process.

Like in NPC, the present case is not an action for expropriation.

NIA never filed expropriation proceedings although it had ample
opportunity to do so. Respondents' complaint is an ordinary civil action
for the recovery of possession of the Property or its value, and damages.
Under these circumstances, a trial before commissioners is not
necessary. 80 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)

We hold that the non-appointment of three (3) Commissioners in the

court a quo does not render infirm the entire proceedings. Neither do we
find improper the trial court's appointment of the Branch Clerk of Court as
Commissioner to receive and report on respondents' evidence. The trial
court is not bound by the Commissioner's recommended valuation of the
property. It still has the discretion on whether to adopt the Commissioner's
recommendation or to make its own independent valuation as gathered from
the evidence reported by the Commissioner.

III

Petitioner is liable to pay respondents just compensation and not (}

merely an easement fee on the basis that its acquisition of a right-of-way /
easement over the portion of respondents' land was a taking under the power
80
Id. at 504-506.
 Decision 15 G.R. No. 172507

of eminent domain.

While expropriation normally involves a taking of title to and

possession of the property, an easement of right of way on a private property
can be considered a taking under eminent domain under certain conditions.
In Republic v. PLDT: 81

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 the 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 propert~ may,
through expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right ofway. 8

There is taking in the context of the state's power of eminent domain

when the following elements are present:

( 1) The expropriator enters a private property;

(2) The entrance into the private property is indefinite or

permanent;

(3) There is color of legal authority in the entry into the property;

(4) . The property is devoted to public use or purpose; and

( 5) The use of property for public use removed from the owner all
beneficial enjoyment of the property. 83

A right-of-way easement or burden becomes a "taking" under eminent

domain when there is material impairment of the value of the property or
prevention of the ordinary uses of the property for an indefinite period. 84
The intrusion into the property must be so immediate and direct as to
subtract from the owner's full enjoyment of the property and to limit his or
her exploitation of it.

In Republic v. Andaya, 85 the enforcement by the Republic of its legal

easement on Andaya's property for concrete levees and floodwalls would
81
82
83
84
136 Phil. 20 (1969) [Per J. J.B.L. Reyes, En Banc].
Id. at 29-30.
Republic v. Vda. de Castel/vi, et al., 157 Phil. 329, 345-347 (1974) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc].
Heirs of Pidacan v. ATO, 552 Phil. 48, 55-56 (2007) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]; Didipio
I
Earth-Savers' Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. v. Gozun, 520 Phil. 457, 480-481 (2006) [Per J. Chico-
Nazario, First Division].
85
552 Phil. 40 (2007) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
 Decision 16 G.R. No. 172507

render the remaining property unusable and uninhabitable. This Court held
that there was a taking of the remaining area of Andaya's property:

We are, however, unable to sustain the Republic's argument that it

is not liable to pay consequential damages if in enforcing the legal
easement on Andaya's property, the remaining area would be rendered
unusable and uninhabitable. "Taking," in the exercise of the power of
eminent domain, occurs not only when the government actually deprives
or dispossesses the property owner of his property or of its ordinary use,
but also when there is a practical destruction or material impairment of the
value of his property. Using this standard, there was undoubtedly a taking
of the remaining area of Andaya's property. True, no burden was imposed
thereon and Andaya still retained title and possession of the property. But,
as correctly observed by the Board and affirmed by the courts a quo, the
nature and the effect of the floodwalls would deprive Andaya of the
normal use of the remaining areas. It would prevent ingress and egress to
the property and turn it into a catch basin/or the floodwaters comingfrom
the Agusan River. 86 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Sangkay87 held that the

National Power Corporation's surreptitious construction of a tunnel
underneath the respondents' land adversely affected the respondent's rights
and interests. This is because the National Power Corporation's
subterranean intervention prevented the respondents from introducing any
developments on the surface and from disposing of the land or any portion
of it. Hence, there was a taking of the land as to entitle the owners to just
compensation:

We agree with both the R TC and the CA that there was a full
taking on the part of NPC, notwithstanding that the owners were not
completely and actually dispossessed. It is settled that the taking of
private property for public use, to be compensable, need not be an actual
physical taking or appropriation. Indeed, the expropriator's action may be
short of acquisition of title, physical possession, or occupancy but may
still amount to a taking. Compensable taking includes destruction,
restriction, diminution, or interruption of the rights of ownership or of the
common and necessary use and enjoyment of the property in a lawful
manner, lessening or destroying its value. It is neither necessary that the
owner be wholly deprived of the use of his property, nor material whether
the property is removed from the possession of the owner, or in any
respect changes hands. 88 (Citations omitted)

The right-of-way easement resulting in a limitation on property rights

over the land traversed by transmission lines also falls within the ambit of
the term "expropriation. " 89
J
86
Id. at 45-46.
87
671 Phil. 569 (2011) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
88
Id. at 595-596.
89
See National Power Corporation v. Suarez, 589 Phil. 219 (2008) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Second
Division]; National Power Corporation v. Tiangco, 543 Phil. 637 (2007) [Per J. Garcia, First Division];
National Power Corp. v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corp., 480 Phil. 470 (2004) [Per J.
 Decision 17 G.R. No. 172507

In National Power Corporation v. Spouses Gutierrez, 90 the petitioner

argued that it should only be made to pay easement fees instead of the full
market value of the land traversed by its transmission lines. In striking
down the petitioner's argument and ruling that the property owners were
entitled to the full market value of the land in question, the Court ruled that:

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[.]

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. 91

In National Power Corporation v. Judge Paderanga, 92 despite the

National Power Corp.oration's protestation that the traversed land could still
be used for agricultural purposes, subject only to its easement, this Court
nevertheless held that the right-of-way easement was a taking under the
power of eminent domain:

From the Commissioners Report chronicling the following findings:

IMPROVEMENTS AFFECTED

Per ocular inspection made on lot own[ed] by PETRONA 0.

Panganiban, Third Division]; Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 398
J
Phil. 886 (2000) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].
90
271Phil.1 (1991) [PerJ. Bidin, Third Division].
91
Id. at 6-7.
92
502 Phil. 722 (2005) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].
 Decision 18 G.R. No. 172507

DILAO, et al. traversed by a transmission line of NPC and with my

verification as to the number of improvements, the following trees had
been damaged.

1. 55 coco trees productive

2. 10 mango trees productive
3. 30 cacao trees productive
4. 110 bananas
5. 400 ipil-ipil trees

it cannot be gainsaid that NPCs complaint merely involves a simple case

of mere passage of transmission lines over Dilao, et al.'s property. Aside
from the actual damage done to the property traversed by the transmission
lines, the agricultural and economic activity normally undertaken on the
entire property is unquestionably restricted and perpetually hampered as
the environment is made dangerous to the occupants' life and limb. 93

In National Power Corporation v. Tiangco: 94

While the power of eminent domain results in the taking or

appropriation of title to, and possession of, the expropriated property, no
cogent reason appears why said power may not be availed of to impose
only a burden upon the owner of the condemned property, without loss of
title and possessi~n. However, if the easement is intended to perpetually
or indefinitely deprive the owner of his proprietary rights through the
imposition of conditions that affect the ordinary use, free enjoyment and
disposal of the property or through restrictions and limitations that are
inconsistent with the exercise of the attributes of ownership, or when the
introduction of structures or objects which, by their nature, create or
increase the probability of injury, death upon or destruction of life and
property found on the land is necessary, then the owner should be
compensated for the monetary equivalent of the land, in accordance with
our ruling in NPC v. Manubay Agro-Industrial:

The evidence suggests that NPC's transmission line project that

traverses the respondents' property is perpetual, or at least indefinite, in
nature. Moreover, not to be discounted is the fact that the high-tension
current to be conveyed through said transmission lines evidently poses a
danger to life and limb; injury, death or destruction to life and property
within the vicinity. As the Court held in NPC v. Chiong, it is not improper
to assume that NPC will erect structures for its transmission lines within
the property. What is sought to be expropriated in this case is, at its
longest extent, 326.34 meters, and through it may be built several
structures, not simply one[.]95 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) j
93
Id. at 735-736.
94
543 Phil. 637 (2007) [Per J. Garcia, First Division]. National Power Corporation v. Tiangco was also
cited in Spouses Cabahug v. National Power Corporation, 702 Phil. 597, 606 (2013) [Per J. Perez,
Second Division].
95
Id. at 649--650.
 Decision 19 G.R. No. 172507

Hence, due to the nature of the easement, which will deprive the
normal use of the land for an indefinite period and expose the property
owners' lives and limbs to danger, just compensation must be based on the
full market value of the affected property. 96

Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 6395, as amended, states that only
10% of the market value of the property is due the owner of the property
subject to a right-of-way easement. However, this rule is not binding on the
Court. Well-settled is the rule that the determination of just compensation
for property taken in expropriation is a judicial prerogative. 97 Such
discretion cannot be curtailed by legislation.

In Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay: 98

The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain

cases is a judicial function. The executive department or the legislature
may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of
the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken
for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive
order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court's
findings. Much less can the courts be ~recluded from looking into the
''just-ness" of the decreed compensation. 9 (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, the Regional Trial Court was correct when it adjudged the
National Power Corporation liable to pay the value of the 4,352-square-
meter portion of respondents' land that was used for its transmission line
project.

IV

As regards the amount of just compensation, factual issues pertaining

to the valuation of the expropriated property are generally beyond the pale of

review under a Rule 45 petition. 10 Factual findings of the trial and appellate

96
f
National Power Corporation v. Spouses Saludares, 686 Phil. 967, 976-978 (2012) [Per J. Sereno,
Second Division]; National Power Corporation v. Tuazon, 668 Phil. 301, 314 (2011) [Per J. Brion,
Second Division]; National Power Corporation v. Co, 598 Phil. 58, 73 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second
Division]; National Power Corporation v. Bagui, 590 Phil. 429, 434 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second
Division], citing National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corp., 480
Phil. 470, 480 (2004) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division] and National Power Corporation v.
Bongbong, 549 Phil. 93, 111 (2007) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Third Division]; Natonal Power Corporation v.
Tiangco, 543 Phil. 637, 648 (2007) [Per J. Garcia, First Division].
97
National Power Corporation v. Spouses Rodolfo Zabala and Lilia Baylon, 702 Phil. 491, 499-500
(2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division] citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, 515 Phil.
467, 477 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
98
233 Phil. 313 (1987) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
99
Id. at 326.
100
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Spouses Casto, 700 Phil. 290, 300 (2012) [Per J. Peralta, Third
 Decision 20 G.R. No. 172507

courts will not be disturbed by this Court unless they are grounded entirely
on speculations, surmises, or conjectures, among others, 101 which do not
obtain in this case.

Just compensation has been defined as the "fair and full equivalent of
the loss." 102 In National Power Corporation v. YCLA Sugar Development
. 103
Corporatzon:

The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word

"compensation" and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be
rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and
ample. The constitutional limitation of 'just compensation" is considered
to be a sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly defined
as the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary
course of legal action and competition; or the fair value of the property; as
between one who receives and one who desires to sell it, fixed at the time
of the actual taking by the government. 104

The value and character of the land at the time it was taken by
government are the criteria for determining just compensation. 105 "All the
facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, as well as its
improvements and capabilities, must thus be considered." 106

Some factors that have been previously considered by the courts were
acquisition cost, current value of like properties, its actual or potential uses,
its size, shape, and location, and the tax declarations on the property. 107 In
this regard, the standards enumerated in statutes such as Section 5 108 of

101
Division].
In Westmont Investment Corp. v. Francia, Jr., 678 Phil. 180, 191 (2011) [Per J. Mendoza, Third
Division], jurisprudence recognize other exceptions, namely: "(2) when the inference made is
!
manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when
in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7)
when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well
as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (I 0) when the
findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record."
102
National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Antonino Pobre, 479 Phil. 850 (2004) [Per J.
Carpio, First Division].
103
723 Phil. 616 (2013) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].
104
Id. at 623. See Republic v. Rural Bank of Kabacan, Inc., 680 Phil. 247, 256-257 (2012) [Per J. Sereno,
Second Division].
105
National Power Corporation v. Spouses Chiong, 452 Phil 649, 664 (2003) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second
Division].
106
National Power Corporation v. Suarez, 589 Phil. 219, 225 (2008) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Second
Division]; National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, 480
Phil. 470, 480 (2004) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
107
Republic v. Court ofAppeals, 612 Phil. 965, 977 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division]; Republic v. Ker
& Company Ltd., 433 Phil. 70, 77 (2002) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Division].
108
SECTION 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of Expropriation
Proceedings or Negotiated Sale. - In order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the
court may consider, among other well-established factors, the following relevant standards:
(a) The classification and use for which the property is suited;
 Decision 21 G.R. No. 172507

Republic Act No. 8974 109 are merely recommendatory, and courts are not
bound to consider all of them. 110

In this case, the Branch Clerk of Court as Commissioner reported that

an inquiry with the Register of Deeds, Calbayog City involving transfer of
realties from January 1998 to December 2000 showed that no transaction
involved a parcel of land located at Barangay Bugtong or its adjacent
barangays of Tinaplacan and Caglanipao Sur. 111 On the other hand, he found
Exhibits F and G not sufficient to prove respondents' claim that their land
was worth Pl,000.00 per square meter as the properties in Exhibits F and G
were located several kilometers away from respondents' land and were of a
dI'ffierent c1ass1.fiicatlon.
. i 12

Furthermore, the Branch Clerk of Court as Commissioner stated that

one high-ranking personnel of the City Assessor's Office of Calbayog
observed that the market value of respondents' land in the Tax Declaration is
a very low appraisal. 113 As such, when he made the recommendation, he
considered other factors such as the accessibility of the property, availability
of basic services in the area, land valuation trend in the City of Calbayog
(which was somewhere between P600.00 and P3,000.00 per square
meter), 114 and interviews with some landowners of the adjacent lots stating
that they would not sell their lands lower than PS00.00 per square meter. 115

The Regional Trial Court found the amount recommended by the

Commissioner as just compensation for the property to be reasonable, thus:

[T]he Court finds the amount recommended by the commissioner as just

compensation of the property expropriated by defendant to be reasonable
and fairly based on the evidence adduced by plaintiff. Exhibits "F" and
series, "G" and series, and "H" and series show the comparative value of
the lands in Western Samar. The Court takes note that in the three cases of
expropriation involving lands in Catbalogan, Samar, the National Power

(b) The developmental costs for improving the land;

-f
(c) The value declared by the owners;
(d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity;
(e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of certain
improvements on the land and for the value of the improvements thereon;
(f) The size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land;
(g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary evidence
presented; and
(h) Such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to have sufficient funds to acquire
similarly-situated lands of approximate areas as those required from them by the government, and
thereby rehabilitate themselves as early as possible.
109
An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location for National Government
Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes.
110
Republic v. Heirs of Spouses Bautista, 702 Phil. 284, 298 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second
Division].
111
RTC records, pp. 160 and 163.
112
Id. at 160.
113
Id.
114
Id.atl64.
115
Id. at 161-162.
 Decision 22 G.R. No. 172507

Corporation was adjudged to pay the value of the properties from

Php2,000.00 to Php2,200.00 per square meter, and these were cases
decided in 1997. Likewise, this Court takes cognizance of the fact that the
commissioner may avail or consider certain factors in determining the fair
market value of the property apart from the proferred documentary
evidences. Thus, the factors taken into account by the commissioner in
arriving at the recommended fair market value of the property at
Php800.00 per square meter, aside from the evidence available, were valid
criteria or gauge in the determination of the just compensation of the
.
sub~ect property. 116

The determination of just compensation being a judicial function, we

find no compelling reason to disturb the valuation set by the Regional Trial
Court and approved by the Court of Appeals. It has not been sufficiently
shown to be grossly exorbitant or otherwise unjustified. 117

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The November 21, 2005

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R CV No. 76313 is AFFIRMED.
Petitioner National Power Corporation is ORDERED to pay respondents
Spouses Margarito arid Tarcinia Asoque the amount of P3,481,600.00 as just
compensation for the 4,352-square-meter property, with legal interest at 6%
per annum from November 1995 until fully paid. Upon petitioner's payment
of the full amount, respondents are ORDERED to execute a Deed of
Conveyance of the 4,352-square-meter property in favor of petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
\

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

Associate Justice
Chairperson

CilruDD ~~j
ARTUROD. MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
116
RTC records, p. 210.
117
National Power Corporation v. Spouses Chiong, 452 Phil. 649, 664 (2003) [Per J. Quisumbing,
Second Division].
Decision 23 G.R. No. 172507

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice