Case Summary (G.R. No. 248680)
Facts and Procedural History
NPC filed a complaint for expropriation on March 19, 1996, covering two parcels: 7,281 square meters co-owned by Dilao and her siblings, and 7,879 square meters owned by Enriquez. An urgent ex parte motion for writ of possession was granted on May 9, 1996. Commissioners appointed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) recommended a compensation rate of P516.66 per square meter for Dilao's land. NPC objected, invoking Section 3A of R.A. No. 6395, which limits compensation for right-of-way easements to ten percent of the property's market value. The RTC adopted the commissioners' valuation and ordered payment of P3,761,801.40 plus P250,000.00 for improvements.
Trial Court Appeals and Issues on Appeal Procedure
NPC attempted to appeal but failed to file a record on appeal within the reglementary period, resulting in the denial of its appeal by the RTC. Subsequent motions for reconsideration and relief citing excusable neglect were denied. The respondents then moved for execution of judgment, which was granted. NPC filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) questioned the denial of its appeal and the order for execution. The CA affirmed the RTC, holding that under Rule 41, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a record on appeal is required in multiple or separate appeals—which exist in expropriation cases—and NPC’s failure to file it was fatal.
Legal Basis for the Requirement of a Record on Appeal
The Court emphasized that expropriation actions involve two distinct phases: (1) determining the plaintiff’s right to expropriate, and (2) determining just compensation. Both stages are appealable, and multiple appeals may arise as recognized in Municipality of BiAan v. Garcia. Accordingly, Rule 41, Section 2 requires the filing of a record on appeal in such cases. NPC’s argument that expropriation actions are special civil actions under Rule 67 and thus do not require a record on appeal was rejected.
Jurisdiction over Respondent Enriquez and Effect on Appeal
NPC argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Enriquez due to no summons served and that no appeal could arise concerning her property. However, the RTC’s May 9, 1996 order acknowledged Enriquez’s manifestation and willingness to accept payment based on fair market value, negating NPC’s claim. Rule 67, Section 3 allows a defendant who does not file an answer to still participate at the trial on just compensation and appeal from orders affecting their property. Thus, NPC’s argument did not bar the necessity for a record on appeal.
Substantive Issue on Just Compensation and Application of R.A. No. 6395 Section 3A
The NPC argued that compensation for the right-of-way easement should be limited to ten percent of market value per Section 3A of R.A. No. 6395, as amended. However, the Court referred to the ruling in National Power Corporation v. Chiong, affirming that just compensation is determined primarily by the nature of the property at the time of taking and the actual effect on its use. The Court noted the agricultural nature of the land, the damage to crops and improvements, and the restrictions imposed by the easement. The valuation by commissioners and adoption by the trial court were affirmed as just and reasonable.
Expropriation Includes Right-of-Way Easements Impacting Property Use
The Court reiterated that expropriation encompasses more than full ownership transfers; it includes imposition of easements restricti
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 248680)
Facts and Procedural History
- The National Power Corporation (NPC) filed a complaint for expropriation on March 19, 1996 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Danao City, Branch 25, targeting parcels of land in Baring and Cantumog, Carmen, Cebu.
- The complaint covered two parcels: 7,281 square meters out of 25,758 square meters co-owned by Petrona O. Dilao (Dilao) and her siblings, and 7,879 square meters out of 17,019 square meters owned by Estefania Enriquez.
- NPC subsequently filed an urgent ex parte motion for a writ of possession on March 20, 1996.
- Dilao and her siblings answered the complaint with a counterclaim on April 19, 1996; Enriquez did not file an answer but manifested no opposition except a demand for fair market value compensation.
- RTC Branch 25 granted NPC's motion on May 9, 1996, issuing a writ of possession and appointed a Board of Commissioners to determine just compensation.
- The Board submitted its appraisal on April 15, 1999, recommending P516.66 per square meter for the Dilao co-owned land.
- NPC filed a Comment/Opposition contesting the appraisal, relying on Section 3A of RA No. 6395, which limits just compensation for right-of-way easement to 10% of market value.
- The RTC rendered a decision on November 10, 1999, adopting the commissioners’ recommended appraisal amounting to P3,761,801.40 plus P250,000.00 for improvements.
- NPC’s notice of appeal was denied on January 17, 2000 due to failure to file and perfect the appeal through the filing of a record on appeal.
- Motions for reconsideration and for relief from the denial were denied by the RTC.
- The RTC granted the defendants’ motion for execution on August 17, 2001.
- NPC prayed for certiorari relief with the Court of Appeals, which was denied; the petition for review on certiorari followed before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether the failure of NPC to file a record on appeal warranted the dismissal of its appeal in an expropriation case.
- Whether a complaint for expropriation is a special proceeding under Rule 41, Section 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, thus requiring a record on appeal.
- Whether the RTC's order and the CA's ruling deprived NPC of due process for failing to allow an appeal without a record on appeal.
- Whether the just compensation awarded based on the commissioners' recommendation and adopted by the RTC was proper, considering Section 3A of RA No. 6395 limiting easement compensation to 10% of market value.
- Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Estefania Enriquez despite her failure to file an answer.
- The applicability and interpretation of Rule 67 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the existence of multiple or separate appeals in expropriation actions.
Applicable Law and Legal Principles
- Rule 41, Section 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: Ordinary appeals require only a notice of appeal except in "special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals" where a record on appeal must be filed.
- Rule 67 of the Rules of Civil Procedure: Governs expropriation cases treating them as "special civil actions," delineating the procedures for defenses, including the filing of answer or no