The right of eminent domain is not unlimited, and two mandatory

requirements should underlie the government's exercise of the power of

eminent domain:

(1) it is for a particular public purpose; and

(2) that just compensation be paid to the property owner.
Furthermore, the public use has evolved to include utility, advantage, or
productivity for the benefit of the public, and the expropriating agency
must commit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the
petition for expropriation.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Saturnino Borbon

G.R. No. 165354, BERSAMIN, 12 Jan 2015

Facts:
The National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) entered a property in
Batangas City in order to construct and maintain transmission lines for
a power transmission project. The property was owned by the heirs of
Saturnino Q. Borbon. NAPOCOR filed a complaint for expropriation in
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking the acquisition of an easement
of right of way over a portion of the property. The respondents objected
to the entry of NAPOCOR and claimed that their property was already
classified as industrial land. The RTC constituted a panel of three
commissioners to determine the just compensation to be paid to the
respondents. The two commissioners submitted a joint report
recommending the payment of P550.00/square meter for the whole lot.
The third commissioner submitted a separate report recommending the
payment of an easement fee plus damages. The RTC adopted the joint
report and ordered NAPOCOR to pay just compensation for the whole
area of the property. NAPOCOR appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA),
which affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Issue:
NAPOCOR sought to discontinue the expropriation proceedings, arguing
that the property was no longer needed for public purpose due to the
retirement of the transmission lines. They contended that continuing the
expropriation would burden the government without serving any public
use.

Whether the expropriation proceedings should be dismissed while also

determining appropriate compensation for the property owners for the
period they were dispossessed.

Held:
The Supreme Court dismissed the expropriation proceedings due to the
lack of public purpose following the retirement of the transmission
lines.

Although the expropriation was dismissed, NAPOCOR was held liable

for disturbing the property rights without consent and without initial
compensation, necessitating payment to the respondents for the
disturbance of their property rights from the time of entry in March
1993 until restoration.

The case was remanded to the trial court for the determination of
reasonable compensation for the disturbance, converting the
proceedings into an action for damages. This decision emphasizes the
paramount importance of public use in expropriation proceedings and
the requirement of just compensation.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the expropriation proceedings

due to the intervening cessation of the need for public use; REMANDS
the records to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, in Batangas City as
the court of origin for further proceedings to be conducted in accordance
with the foregoing instructions; and ORDERS said trial court to try and
decide the issues with dispatch.