National Power Corporation v.

Co
G.R. No. 166973, February 10, 2009

The case involves the determination of just compensation for the expropriation of
property by the National Power Corporation for the construction of power
transmission lines, with the court ruling that the full fair market value of the property
should be paid based on the date of actual taking.
Facts:
 National Power Corporation (petitioner) filed a complaint with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, Pampanga, for the acquisition of an
easement of right-of-way over three lots belonging to Benjamin Ong Co
(respondent).
 The purpose of the acquisition was for the construction of power transmission
lines.
 The RTC appointed three commissioners to determine the fair market value of
the property.
 The reports of the commissioners varied in their appraisals.
 The RTC rendered a partial decision ordering the petitioner to pay the
respondent a certain amount as just compensation.
 The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue:
 The main issue in the case is the determination of just compensation for the
expropriation of the respondent's property for the construction of power
transmission lines.
Ruling:
 The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's partial decision.
 The petitioner was ordered to pay the full fair market value of the property as
just compensation.
 The computation of just compensation should be based on the date of actual
taking, rather than the date of filing of the complaint.
Ratio:
 The power of eminent domain allows the government to appropriate private
property for public use.
 Just compensation must be given to the property owner.
 The determination of just compensation is a judicial function.
 The legislature can fix the standard for just compensation.
 In this case, the court held that the petitioner is liable to pay the full market
value of the property.
 The construction of the transmission lines restricts the respondent's use of his
property.
 The computation of just compensation should be based on the date of actual
taking, as provided in Rule 67.
 The determination of just compensation remains within the province of the
judiciary.
 The standards set forth in the law should be followed.
 The case was remanded to the trial court for the appointment of a new set of
commissioners to determine the fair market value of the property.