Title
National Power Corporation vs. Manalastas
Case
G.R. No. 196140
Decision Date
Jan 27, 2016
NAPOCOR constructed power lines on private land without consent or compensation. SC ruled just compensation based on fair market value at the time of taking, excluding inflation, with interest for delay. Exemplary damages and attorney’s fees awarded.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 223660)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Nature of Case
  • National Power Corporation (NPC) – government-owned and controlled corporation engaged in power generation, transmission and distribution.
  • Respondents Elizabeth Manalastas and Bea Castillo – owners of parcel of land covered by TCT No. 26263.
  • Transmission Line Construction and Impact
  • Circa 1977–1978, NPC constructed a 230 kV line (Naga–Tiwi) and a 69 kV line (Naga–Tinambac) over respondents’ land (26,919 sqm) without their knowledge, consent or expropriation proceedings.
  • Presence of the lines prevented development of the land as a subdivision, causing respondents’ alleged financial losses.
  • Trial Court Proceedings
  • July 2000 – respondents (joined by mother Celedonia and brother Mariano) filed complaint in RTC of Naga City, praying for removal of lines or just compensation at ₱800/sqm for 26,000 sqm.
  • November 17, 2006 – RTC Decision ordered NPC to pay just compensation of ₱92,827,351.00 broken down as follows:
    • Elizabeth and Bea: land value ₱53,816,461.00 plus 6% interest for 28 years (₱32,033,610.00) = ₱85,850,071.00
    • Celedonia and Enrico: land value ₱1,000,200.00 plus 6% interest for 9 years (₱5,887,080.00) = ₱6,977,280.00
    • Attorney’s fees of ₱100,000.00
  • Court of Appeals and Present Petition
  • CA Decision (Sept. 9, 2010) affirmed with modification, reducing award to Celedonia and Enrico to ₱1,678,908.00; held NPC bound by its own valuation recommendation (judicial admission).
  • CA Resolution (Mar. 14, 2011) denied NPC’s motion for partial reconsideration.
  • NPC filed Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court, contending:
    • Estoppel is inoperative against the government; inflation rate should not be included in just compensation.
    • Just compensation determination is a judicial function; courts not bound by party’s formulation.
    • Award of ₱85,850,071.00 unjustly enriches respondents.

Issues:

  • Whether the inflation rate of the Philippine Peso may be included in computing just compensation for expropriated land.
  • Whether estoppel binds the government to its agents’ or counsel’s erroneous valuation recommendations.
  • Whether courts are bound to uphold a party’s formulation of just compensation absent legal basis.
  • Whether the award as computed by the lower courts results in unjust enrichment of respondents.

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.