Title
Heirs of Dimao vs. National Grid Corporation of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 254020
Decision Date
Mar 1, 2023
NGCP expropriated land in 1978; heirs sought compensation in 2014. SC ruled no entitlement to land value, only improvements, under C.A. No. 141’s 60-meter easement. Deposit refund ordered.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 269159)

Facts:

  • Background and Parties
    • In 1978, National Power Corporation (NPC) constructed the Baloi-Agus 2 138kV Transmission Line (BATL) across multiple parcels, including Lot No. 104, Gss-10-000286 in Barangay Basagad, Baloi, Lanao del Norte (11,640 sqm).
    • Under RA 9136 (2001), TRANSCO assumed NPC’s transmission functions; on January 15, 2009, NGCP took over TRANSCO’s operations.
  • Expropriation Proceedings
    • On August 15, 2014, NGCP filed for expropriation of the Subject Property, praying for a writ of possession to clear vegetation within the 30 m right-of-way (ROW); it deposited ₱1,756,400 (100% BIR zonal value).
    • The RTC issued a writ of possession on September 2, 2014; NGCP took possession on September 25–26, 2014.
    • On October 1, 2014, petitioners (heirs of Raisa Dimao, registered owner since October 2, 2012) answered, demanding ₱113,552,000 plus interest and rentals. No settlement was reached, leading to appointment of commissioners.
  • Trial and Appeals
    • RTC Decision (April 16, 2018): Declared NGCP’s right to expropriate 11,460 sqm; awarded just compensation of ₱49,622,050 (ordering deposit of additional ₱47,865,650). Motion for reconsideration denied (Aug 9, 2018).
    • CA Decision (July 26, 2019): Affirmed expropriation right but deleted the additional ₱47,865,650 award, citing Section 112 of C.A. No. 141 (60 m easement on patent lands) and lack of proof of pre-1978 improvements.
    • CA Resolution (Aug 4, 2020): Denied reconsideration. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for certiorari.

Issues:

  • Just Compensation Entitlement
    • Whether petitioners, as registered owners since 2012, are entitled to just compensation for the ROW taking.
    • Whether the reckoning point is the construction of BATL in 1978 or the filing of the complaint in 2014.
  • Applicability and Validity of Section 112, C.A. No. 141
    • Whether Section 112’s 60 m easement provision applies to NGCP (a quasi-public entity).
    • Whether Section 112 is unconstitutional or superseded by RA 8974 and RA 10752.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.