Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81111:gr-186069-2013&catid=1566&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:34:50+00:00

Document:
SPOUSES JESUS L. CABAHUG AND CORONACION M. CABAHUG, Petitioners, v.NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Respondent.
Considering that Gutierrez was specifically made the point of reference for Jesus Cabahugs reservation to seek further compensation from NPC, we find that the CA likewise erred in finding that the ruling in said case does not apply to the case at bench. Concededly, the NPC was constrained to file an expropriation complaint in Gutierrez due to the failure of the negotiations for its acquisition of an easement of right of way for its transmission lines. The issue that was eventually presented for this Courts resolution, however, was the propriety of making NPC liable for the payment of the full market value of the affected property despite the fact that transfer of title thereto was not required by said easement. In upholding the landowners right to full just compensation, the Court ruled that the power of eminent domain may be exercised although title is not transferred to the expropriator in an easement of right of way. Just compensation which should be neither more nor less than the money equivalent of the property is, moreover, due where the nature and effect of the easement is to impose limitations against the use of the land for an indefinite period and deprive the landowner its ordinary use.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED and the CA's assailed 16 May 2007 Decision and 9 January 2009 Resolution are, accordingly, REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, another is entered REINSTATING the RTC's 14 March 2000 Decision, subject to the MODIFICATION that the awards of attorney's fees, actual damages and/or litigation expenses are DELETED.
1 Penned by CA Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon and concurred in by Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Francisco P. Acosta.
2 CA's 16 May 2007 Decision, rollo, pp. 30-35.
3 CAs 9 January 2009 Resolution, id. at 88a-89.
4 TCT Nos. T-9813 and T-1599, id. at 50-52.
5 An Act Revising the Charter of the National Power Corporation.
6 Rollo, pp. 44-45; 57-58 and 77.
7 9 November 1996 Right of Way Grant in Favor of NPC, id. at 53-56; G.R. No. 60077, 18 January 1991, 193 SCRA 1.
8 Spouses Cabahugs 18 September 1998 Complaint, id. at 44-48.
9 NPCs 9 October 1998 Answer, id at 63-70.
10 RTCs 14 March 2000 Decision, id. at 71-80.
14 Spouses Cabahugs 6 June 2008 Motion for Reconsideration, id. at 81-88.
15 CAs 9 January 2009 Resolution, id. at 88a-89.
20 R&M General Merchandise, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 419 Phil. 131, 142 (2001).
21 Antipolo Properties, Inc. v. Nuyda, G.R. No. 171832, 12 October 2009, 603 SCRA 376, 381.
22 Sps. Barrera v. Sps. Lorenzo, 438 Phil. 42, 49 (2002).
23 German Marine Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC, 403 Phil. 572, 589 (2001).
24 Bautista v. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 386, 399 (2000).
25 National Power Corporation v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 193023, 29 June 2011, 653 SCRA 84, 94.
26 National Power Corporation v. Tiangco, G.R. No. 170846, 6 February 2007, 514 SCRA 674, 686-687.
27 NPC v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corp., 480 Phil. 470, 479 (2004).
28 National Power Corporation v. Villamor, G.R. No. 160080, 19 June 2009, 590 SCRA 11, 20-21; National Power Corporation v. Tiangco, 543 Phil. 637, 649 (2007); National Power Corporation v. San Pedro, 534 Phil. 448, 470 (2006); Didipio Earth Savers Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. (DESAMA) v. Sec. Gozun, 520 Phil. 457 (2006); National Power Corporation v. Aguirre-Paderanga, 502 Phil. 722 (2005); National Power Corporation v. Igmedio, 452 Phil. 649, 662 (2000); Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 398 Phil. 886, 899 (2000); National Power Corporation v. Gutierrez, supra, note 7.
29 National Power Corporation v. Bongbong, G.R. 164079, 3 April 2007, 520 SCRA 290, 307.
30 Republic v. Libunao, G.R. No. 166553, 30 July 2009, 594 SCRA 363, 378.
31 National Power Corporation v. Saludares, G.R. No. 189127, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 266, 277.
32 Republic v. Spouses Libunao, supra, note 29, at 379.
33 Country Bankers Ins. Corp. v. Lianga Bay, 425 Phil. 511, 525 (2002).
34 Mercury Drug Corporation v. Baking, G.R. No. 156037, 25 May 2007,523 SCRA 184, 192.
35 Government Service Insurance System v. Sps. Gonzalo and Labung-Deang, 417 Phil. 662, 671 (2001).

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