Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51657:gr-164964-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:01:52+00:00

Document:
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. MARIA BAGUI, VEDASTO BAGUI, FELICIANA BAGUI, EPIFANIA BAGUI, HEIRS OF MARGARITO MACARAIG and WIFE, represented by Dolores Macaraig, NIEVES VALDEZ and JAIME MARQUEZ, Respondents.
Subject of this Petition for Review1 is the Decision2 dated 16 August 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 72399, which affirmed in toto the 30 May 2001 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 84 in the expropriation case filed by the National Power Corporation (NPC).
Upon deposit of the amount representing the provisional value of the subject properties and service upon respondents of the Notice to Take Possession,15 NPC filed an urgent ex-parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession.16 Respondents filed their opposition.17 In an Order dated 18 August 2000,18 the trial court directed both parties to submit the valuation of the improvements on their properties, and specifically NPC alone to make a valuation of the existing house of the Baguis.
The first set of commissioners submitted its initial Report22 recommending the amounts of P1,162.00, P938.78, and P1,654.40 per square meter for the properties of Belegal, Spouses David and respondents Baguis,23 respectively. The Report was rectified24 and a new valuation was made only for the properties of Belegal and Spouses David at P1,134.22 per square meter and P1,000.65 per square meter, respectively. The valuation for respondents Baguis remained the same.25 The second set of commissioners submitted its Appraisal Report setting the fair market value of the lands of respondents Macaraig, Marquez and Valdez at P250.00, P350.00 and P3,000.00 per square meter, respectively.
On 16 August 2004, the appellate court promulgated its decision affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of respondents Baguis, Macaraig, Valdez and Marquez against NPC.33 The decision is now before this Court.
Through the Office of the Solicitor General,34 NPC makes a three-pronged challenge to the valuations submitted by the commissioners in determining the amount of just compensation. First, it argues that the computation of just compensation should have been based on Section 3-A(b) of R.A. No. 6395, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 938,35 the governing law on eminent domain complaints for easement of right-of-way. Second, it impugns the rectified report of the first set of commissioners in giving weight to "Opinion Value." Third, it avers that the appraisal report of the second set of commissioners relied on hearsay evidence, consisting of the opinion of the barangay chairman and the estimate of the provincial assessor.
The instant petition essentially brings forth two issues, one of law and the other of fact. The legal issue is whether NPC should be made to pay just compensation in terms of the full market value of the properties traversed by the transmission lines. This matter has long been decided by this Court in a plethora of cases and must now be laid to rest.
In National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation39 involving an easement of a right-of-way over a parcel of land that would be traversed by high-powered transmission lines, the Court held that the nature and effect of the installation of power lines and the limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period would deprive the owners of the normal use of their properties. Thus, just compensation must be based on the full market value of the affected properties.40 This ruling was reiterated in NPC v. Bongbong41 which also pertained to the acquisition of a simple right-of-way easement for the passage of overhead transmission lines.
On the other hand, the factual issue is whether the determinations of just compensation made by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are correct.
As a general rule, the Court will not disturb the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts unless they are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures,47 among others.48 The aforecited exception partly obtains in this case.
Challenged by the NPC are the reports submitted by two separate sets of commissioners. The first set of commissioners' report deals with the property of the Baguis while the second set of commissioners' report covers the properties of respondents Macaraig and Valdez.
Incidentally, the opinion and CALABARZON values were relatively high52 . However, these were only two of the many factors that were looked into by the commissioners in their valuation. They also considered the average sales data, zonal valuation, and loan value in coming up with a reasonable estimate of just compensation. The valuation was arrived at after carefully weighing in all these factors and should thus be upheld.
Section 4, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that just compensation is to be determined as of the date of the taking or the filing of the complaint whichever came first. In this case, the complaint for expropriation was filed on 10 March 2000 while the trial court issued a writ of possession on 19 December 2000. Resolution No. 03-99 setting the fair market value of the property in Banaba, San Pascual, Batangas at P250.00 per square meter was issued on 2 March 1999. Clearly, the market value could no longer be accurate as prices might have been distorted after a year. Furthermore, the commissioners did not bother to explain the similarities in the nature, character or condition between the properties of respondents and the properties subject of the resolution.
Worse, the commissioners' valuation of the Valdez' property was based only on an information that a similar lot in the same subdivision was sold at P350.00. The source of that information was not stated. Being unsubstantiated, the valuation cannot support the compensation award.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 72399 is AFFIRMED insofar as it refers to the properties of the Baguis. This case is REMANDED to the trial court for the proper determination of the amount of just compensation with respect to the properties of respondents Macaraig and Valdez. No costs.
2 Id. at 30-35; penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Perlita Tria Tirona and Noel G. Tijam.
14 Id. at 66-67, 76-77.
20 All lands are located in Banaba, San Pascual.
21 Id. at 146. In the same order, the trial court also set the fair market value of the improvements of the Baguis at P135,000.00 for Maria, while that of Feliciana, who is a co-owner of the lot but has a house of her own situated therein, at P230,000.00.
35 SEC. 3A. 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 necessary shall be acquired.
37 Id. at 147. Due to the failure of respondents Baguis, et al. to file a comment on the petition despite repeated warnings, they were deemed to have waived the filing of comment.
39 G.R. No. 150936, 18 August 2004, 437 SCRA 60.
41 G.R. No. 164079, 3 April 2007, 520 SCRA 290.
42 G.R. No. 160725, 12 September 2008.
43 G.R. No. 155065, 28 July 2005, 464 SCRA 481.
45 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, G.R. No. 164876, 23 January 2006, 479 SCRA 495, 505.
46 Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603, 29 April 1987, 149 SCRA 305, 312.
47 Tigoy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144640, 26 June 2006, 494 SCRA 539, 549.
48 "Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive, and may not be reviewed on appeal except: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (7) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and, (8) when the findings of fact are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record." See Almendrala v. Ngo, G.R. No. 142408, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA 311, 322.
50 National Power Corporation v. Tiangco, G.R. No. 170846, 6 February 2007, 514 SCRA 674, 685.
51 Land Bank of the Phi. v. Wycoco, 464 Phil. 83, 97 (2004).
52 Opinion value was set at P1,500.00 per square meter while CALABARZON value was at P4,000.00 per square meter.
53 The mayor of San Pascual made a request for said assessment for the purpose of purchasing a lot in the area to be used as a dumping site. Subsequently on 2 March 1999, the provincial assessors recommended a valuation of P250.00 per square meter.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.