424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Romonafe Corporation vs. National Power Corporation

*
G.R. No. 168122. January 30, 2007.

ROMONAFE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL

POWER CORPORATION
**
and VINE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, respondents.

Constitutional Law; Eminent Domain; Just Compensation;

Just compensation is to be determined as of the date of the taking
of the property or the filing of the complaint whichever comes first.
— Just compensation is to be determined as of the date of the
taking of the property or the filing of the complaint whichever
comes first. In the case at bar, just compensation should thus be
determined as of July 12, 1995 when the expropriation case was
filed before the trial court.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Cayanga, Zuniga & Angel Law Offices for petitioner.
     Danilo L. Patron for respondent.

CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

Respondent National Power Corporation (NPC), a

government owned and controlled
1
corporation, filed on July
12, 1995 a complaint for eminent domain with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite against
Romonafe Corporation (Romonafe), herein petitioner, and
Vine Development Corporation (Vine), docketed as Civil
Case No. 1140-95. The complaint covered 48,103.12 square
meters of property belonging to Romonafe and 96,963.38
square meters of property belong-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
** As will be discussed herein, the impleading of Vine Development
Corporation as respondent was erroneous.
 1 RTC Records, pp. 1-19.

425

VOL. 513, JANUARY 30, 2007 425

Romonafe Corporation vs. National Power Corporation

ing to Vine, all located in Barangay San Agustin,

Dasmariñas, Cavite.
On January 26, 1996,
2
Branch 21 of the Imus RTC issued
a writ of possession in favor of NPC, on account of which
the NPC took possession of the3 property of both Romonafe
and Vine on February 12, 1996.
On December 3, 1996, the trial court designated
commissioners
4
to determine the just compensation for the
properties. 5
By Commissioner’s Valuation Report submitted on
February 18, 1997, the commissioners recommended just
compensation of P3,500 per square meter for the Romonafe
property.
To the Commissioner’s 6Valuation Report, the NPC filed
its Comment/Opposition, assailing the valuation for
“having used as basis the present (1997) market value of
the property instead of the market value on7
July 12, 1995,
the time of the filing of the complaint.” The NPC cited
October 25, 1995 Resolution No. 08-95 of the Provincial
Appraisal Committee (PAC) of Cavite which assessed the
property of Romonafe at P1,500 per 8
square meter and that
of Vine at P2,000 per square meter. 9
By Commissioner’s Valuation Report submitted on July
11, 1997, the commissioners gave the property of Vine
assessed value of P3,500 per square meter as of June 1,
1997. 10
Romonafe filed its Reply to [the NPC] Opposition to the
Commissioners Valuation Report, manifesting that on
account of its letter dated June 9, 1997 seeking
reconsideration

_______________

2 Id., at p. 108.
3 Id., at p. 116.
4 Id., at p. 137.
5 Id., at pp. 142-145.
6 Id., at pp. 153-159.
7 Id., at p. 153.
8 Id., at pp. 155-156, 158-157.
 9 Id., at pp. 166-167.
10 Id., at pp. 180-181.

426

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Romonafe Corporation vs. National Power Corporation

of above-cited October 25, 1995 11Resolution No. 08-95, the

PAC issued Resolution No. 07-97 assessing its property at
P3,500 per square
12
meter.
By Decision of September 5, 1997, the trial court,
declaring that the parcels of land of Romonafe and Vine
had been lawfully expropriated and now belonged to the
NPC to be used for public purpose, disposed:

“x x x x
The plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay the defendants, through
the Branch Clerk of this Court, the fair market value of the
property at P3,500.00 per square meter, that is, for defendant
Vine Development Corporation, the total sum of P339,371,830.00
and for defendant Romonafe Corporation, the total sum of
P168,360,920.00, plus legal rate of interest—i.e. 6% per annum—
starting from the time the plaintiff took possession of the property
up to the time the full amount shall have been paid.
The commissioner’s fee is hereby fixed at P10,000.00 per
commissioner, to be paid by the plaintiff.
The Branch Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to have a
certified copy of this decision be registered in the Office of the
Registry of Deeds of13 Cavite.
SO ORDERED.” (Emphasis and italics supplied)
14
The NPC thus filed on October 1, 1997 a Notice of Appeal
to the Court of Appeals. The appeal, docketed as CA-G.R.
No. CV-57710, was entitled “National Power Corporation v.
Vine Development Corporation, represented by its President
Vicente C. Ponce and Romonafe Corporation, represented by
its President Oscar F. Tirona.”
During the pendency of the appeal or on June 22, 1998,
15
the appellate court received a Compromise Agreement
dated June

_______________

11 Id., at pp. 182-183.

12 Id., at pp. 196-206.
13 Id., at p. 206.
14 Id., at pp. 207-208.
 15 CA Rollo, pp. 18-26.

427

VOL. 513, JANUARY 30, 2007 427

Romonafe Corporation vs. National Power Corporation

8, 1998 forged by NPC and Romonafe whereby NPC agreed

to pay Romonafe P3,500 per square meter of its property
and Romonafe agreed to sell NPC 27,293.88 square meters
in addition to the 48,103.12 square meters originally
expropriated, as well as a discount of P4,092,810.40 on the
P284,092,810.40 total payable amount inclusive of interest.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in compliance
with the appellate court’s order, filed its Comment on the
Compromise Agreement forged between NPC and
Romonafe. It questioned the agreement to pay Romonafe
on the basis of the 1997 valuation of its property at 16P3,500
per square meter as “contrary
17
to decisional law.” In a
Supplemental Comment, the OSG informed the appellate
court that the attorneys who signed 18
the agreement were
not authorized to sign on its behalf.
By Resolution of January 19, 1999, the appellate court
dismissed NPC’s appeal in this wise:

“At the hearing of this case on December 10, 1998, the Honorable
Ricardo P. Galvez, Solicitor General, appeared personally and
moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the
authority of the lawyers of the National Power Corporation to
appear as Special Attorneys of the Solicitor General is limited to
cases before the lower courts (RTCs and MTCs). He also invokes
the provisions of the Administrative Code (Section 35(1) Chapter
12, Title III, Book IV) that said lawyers have no authority to
appear before this Court.
WHEREFORE, without objection on the part of19 all the parties
in this case, the instant appeal is DISMISSED.” (Emphasis in
the original; underscoring supplied)

To the dismissal the NPC filed a Motion for

Reconsideration, arguing that the OSG did not move for the
dismissal of the appeal and had, in fact, earlier manifested
on December

_______________

16 Id., at p. 77.
17 Id., at pp. 89-92.
18 Id., at p. 89.
 19 Id., at p. 171.

428

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Romonafe Corporation vs. National Power Corporation

11, 1998 that the OSG-deputized 20

counsels had the
authority to file notices of appeal. 21
Its motion for
22
reconsideration having been denied, NPC
filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court,
docketed as G.R. No. 137785, entitled “National Power
Corporation v. Vine Development Corporation, represented
by Vicente C. Ponce and Romonafe Corporation, represented
by Oscar F. Tirona.”
In the meantime, also during the pendency of G.R. No.
137785, the OSG submitted on 23June 9, 1999 to this Court a
Partial Compromise Agreement between the NPC and Vine
whereby, among other things, Vine reduced the value of its
property from P3,500 to P3,400 per square meter, gave
NPC a discount of 20% on the interest awarded by the trial
court, and acceded to the request of the NPC for an
additional area of 5,499.62 square meters and for the
aggregate payment (totaling P128,530,200.00) for the three
parcels of land to be “part of the down payment approved
by the National Power Board in favor of respondent Vine
Development Corporation under NP Board Resolution No.
98-91 confirmed on April 24
27, 1998 and NP Board
Resolution No. 98-97 x x x.”
By Decision of September 4, 2000, this Court, in G.R.
No. 137785, “invalidated” the signatures of NPC lawyers in 25
the Compromise Agreement between NPC and Romonafe,
for lack of authority to bind NPC. It then remanded to the
appellate court NPC’s appeal from the trial court’s26Decision
of September 5, 1995 for disposition on the merits.

_______________

20 Id., at pp. 178-179.

21 Id., at pp. 188-193.
22 Id., at pp. 200-232.
23 Rollo, pp. 87-95.
24 Id., at p. 91. Vide pp. 96-97.
25 National Power Corporation v. Vine Development Corporation, 394
Phil. 76, 87-88; 339 SCRA 580, 591 (2000).
26 Id., at p. 88.

429
 VOL. 513, JANUARY 30, 2007 429
Romonafe Corporation vs. National Power Corporation

27
By Decision of November 10, 2004, the appellate court
nullified the June 8, 1998 Compromise Agreement between
NPC and Romonafe as being contrary 28
to the B.H.
Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals ruling that just
compensation should be ascertained at the time of the
filing of the complaint, adding that it was disadvantageous
to the government. And it fixed the market 29value of
Romonafe’s property at P1,500 per square meter. Thus it
disposed:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed 05 September

1997 Decision of the court a quo in Civil Case No. 1140-95 is
hereby SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED for being contrary to law
and jurisprudence.
The Compromise Agreement dated 08 June 1998 [between
National Power Corporation and Romonafe] is also decreed NULL
and VOID for being disadvantageous to the Government, thus,
against public policy.
In lieu thereof, it is further decreed by this Court that the fair
market value of the expropriated 30
parcel of land be fixed at
P1,500.00 per square meter.” (Emphasis and italics in the
original; underscoring supplied)
31 32
Its Motion for Reconsideration having been 33 denied,
Romonafe filed the instant Petition for Review against
NPC and erroneously against Vine, positing as follows:

I. IT IS GRAVE ERROR FOR THE COURT OF

APPEALS TO NULLIFY AND DECLARE VOID
THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
NPC AND ROMONAFE X X X

_______________

27 Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr.,

with the concurrence of Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin and Celia C.
Librea-Leagogo, CA Rollo, pp. 619-630.
28 G.R. No. 89980, December 14, 1992, 216 SCRA 584.
29 CA Rollo, pp. 629-630.
30 Ibid.
31 Id., at pp. 637-658.
32 Id., at p. 707.
33 Rollo, pp. 11-57.

430
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Romonafe Corporation vs. National Power Corporation

xxxx

II. IT IS GRAVE ERROR FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS

TO REFUSE TO RENDER A DECISION ON ALL
ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
ON APPEAL, WHICH INCLUDES A DETERMINATION
OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NPC
AND VINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
III. IT IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE
COURT OF APPEALS TO REFUSE TO RECONSIDER
ITS RESOLUTION, WHICH REFUSAL AMOUNTS TO A
CONDONATION OF THE UNDUE DISCRIMINATION
AND PARTIALITY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IN
FAVOR OF VINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A
REFUSAL TANTAMOUNT TO EVASION OF POSITIVE
DUTY AND A REFUSAL TO PERFORM THE
ENJOINED DUTY34
TO UPHOLD THE LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION. (Italics supplied)
35
NPC notes in its Comment the silence of the appellate
court’s decision on the Partial Compromise Agreement
forged between NPC and Vine which was, as priorly stated,
submitted before this Court on March 19, 1999 during the
pendency of G.R. No. 137785 and which Partial Agreement
was, by NPC’s information, submitted before the appellate
court. The NPC thus prays that this Court consider the
said Partial Compromise Agreement in the resolution of
this case.
Just compensation is to be determined as of the date of
the taking of the property
36
or the filing of the complaint
whichever comes first. In the case at bar, just
compensation should thus be determined as of July 12,
1995 when the expropriation case was filed before the trial
court.

_______________

34 Id., at p. 41.
35 Id., at pp. 202-231.
36 Rules of Court, Rule 67, Section 4. Vide Bank of the Philippine
Islands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160890, November 10, 2004, 441
SCRA 637, 644; B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals, supra note
28 at p. 587.

431
 VOL. 513, JANUARY 30, 2007 431
Romonafe Corporation vs. National Power Corporation

The Commissioners Valuation Report—upon which the

trial court’s decision, as well as the Compromise
Agreement between NPC and Romonafe, was based—took
into account, in appraising the value of Romonafe’s
property, among other considerations, “desirability,
neighborhood, utility, size and time element, the prevailing
market value
37
[at] the time of the appraisal of the
property.”
In demurring to the Commissioners Valuation Report,
NPC claims that the properties of Romonafe was valued at
P1,500 per square meter in 1995. It cites above-mentioned
PAC Resolution No. 08-95. Romonafe contends, however,
that PAC Resolution 07-97 assessed its property at P3,500
per square meter. Such contention deserves no
consideration. As the OSG points out:

“First. The third perambulatory clause of PAC Resolution No. 07-

97 (amending PAC Resolution No. 08-95) states:

WHEREAS, Romonafe Corporation had submitted additional

data/information which were not readily available to and duly considered
by the committee during the appraisal on October 25, 1995 x x x

xxxx
However, the plain language of PAC Resolution No. 08-95
belies the afore-quoted declaration in PAC Resolution No. 07-97
with regard to the availability of the x x x data in 1995:

xxxx
WHEREAS, after a thorough discussion and careful analysis of the
narrative reports submitted by the Municipal Appraisal Committee of the
concerned Municipalities, the Provincial Appraisal Committee has
established the fair market value on the subject parcels of land A
VALUE WHICH IS NOT TOO HIGH ON THE PART OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND NOT TOO LOW ON THE PART OF THE
PROPERTY OWNERS.

_______________

37 RTC Records, p. 145.

432

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Romonafe Corporation vs. National Power Corporation
     x x x x
The [1995] valuation came about after the Provincial Appraisal
Committee tasked the respective Municipal Assessors of Bacoor,
Imus, and Dasmariñas, Cavite to conduct their own appraisal to
determine the current and fair market value of the lands subject
thereof within their respective jurisdictions, pursuant to
Executive Order No. 132, Series of 1987, as amended.
xxxx
Second. PAC Resolution No. 08-95 was approved on October
25, 1995. However, petitioner filed a letter of reconsideration
thereof only on June 9, 1997 or after the lapse of almost one
(1) year and eight (8) months. If it felt actually and truly
aggrieved by the valuation made in said resolution, why did it not
immediately object thereto? Surely, petitioner cannot feign lack of
knowledge of the existence of the same resolution after its
approval considering that the appraisal was, in fact, made
precisely in connection with the expropriation proceeding already
filed in court on July 12, 1995.
Third. The panel of commissioners constituted by the trial
court for the purpose of determining the just compensation for
petitioner and VINE’s expropriated properties conducted an
ocular inspection thereof on January 10, 1997. It then submitted
to the trial court a Commissioner’s Valuation Report appraising
petitioner’s property at P3,500 per square meter.
If at all, the above-recommended valuation only indicates that
it is, indeed, the valuation of petitioner’s property for the year
1997. It cannot be seriously claimed that it was already the same
valuation of the petitioner’s property on July 12, 1995, the date of
the filing of the NPC’s complaint for expropriation. Observedly,
there is a time lapse of almost one and a half (1 and ½) years from
July 12, 1995 to January 10, 1997. It is of common knowledge
that the price of real property steadily increased at an amazing
speed within the periods material to this case; hence, it is simply
preposterous to claim that the market value 38of petitioner’s
property in 1995 remained constant up to 1997.” (Emphasis in
the original)

_______________

38 Rollo, pp. 217, 219-223. Vide note 1 at pp. 158-159, 182-183.

433

VOL. 513, JANUARY 30, 2007 433

Romonafe Corporation vs. National Power Corporation

It bears clarification, however, that the 1995 assessment

applies only to the 96,963.38 square meters of Romonafe’s
 property subject of Civil Case No. 1140-95.
The Court notes that the appellate court failed to pass
on NPC’s appeal with respect to the property of Vine. And,
as NPC and even Romonafe manifest, the appellate court
failed to consider the Partial Compromise Agreement
between NPC and Vine in its assailed Decision. A remand
of the case to the appellate court is thus in order.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Conformably with the observation in the immediately
preceding paragraph, let the records of the case be
remanded to the Court of Appeals for it to pass on the
merits of the appeal of the National Power Corporation
from the trial court’s decision respecting Vine Development
Corporation and the Partial Compromise Agreement
subsequently forged during the pendency of the appeal
between the National Power Corporation and Vine
Development Corporation.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

          Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Tinga and

Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Note.—Just compensation shall be determined as of the

time of actual taking. (City of Cebu vs. Dedamo, 381 SCRA
754 [2002])

——o0o——

434

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.