USA College of Law

YULO – 1F

CASE NAME JANE L. GARCIA, et al. vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION

TOPIC Eminent Domain

Case No. / Date G.R. No. L-47553 January 31, 1981
Ponente Fernandez, J.
Doctrine Staying in the property by permission of the owner does not constitute “taking”.

Relevant Facts: (Please take note of the dates as they are important!)

 NPC occupied block 19 in 1957 for the construction of transmission lines and had not paid
anything for the portion occupied, either as rental or purchase price.

 On August 8, 1969, NPC filed an expropriation complaint praying to allow them to acquire right
of way easements over the property of Garcia.

 The compensation shall be based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the land.

 CFI ordered NPC to pay the amount of P 15.00 per square meter as it is the fair market value of
the said land in 1969.

 NPC contended that the compensation must be based at the time of the alleged taking in 1957
and that they already took possession of the land since they have been occupying the land with
the permission of the owner since that year.

 CA ruled that NPC already took into possession the land in 1957 and based the market value in
the said year. It lowered the value of block 19 to P 0.07 per square meter

 Garcia questioned the ruling of CA.

ISSUE: Whether or Not staying in the property “by permission” constitutes the “taking of the land”

RULING:

No. Staying in the property by permission of the owner does not constitute “taking”.

Thus, there was no taking of the land in 1957 because NPC stayed in Block 19 only by mere permission.

Hence, the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the fair market value of the property in question
based on the tax assessment in 1957 is an error of law, as it is a conclusion predicated on the wrong
assumption that there was a taking or possession of Block 19 in 1957 for purposes of expropriation.

The fair market value shall be based in 1969. Thus, the fair market value of the land is P15.00 per square
meter.
RULING:
MODIFIED