Title
National Power Corp. vs. Posada
Case
G.R. No. 191945
Decision Date
Mar 11, 2015
NPC initiated expropriation for a power project, disputed land value with owners, withdrew upon finding an alternative site; SC remanded to assess owner prejudice.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191945)

Procedural History

NPC filed Civil Case No. 0008 to expropriate land in December 2002, offering ₱500/m²; respondents countered at ₱2,000/m². The Regional Trial Court (RTC) confirmed NPC’s authority, appointed commissioners, and NPC deposited provisional amounts. The RTC later issued and then recalled a writ of possession for NPC’s failure to comply with compensation guidelines. NPC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the recall and rejection of NPC’s appeal. NPC filed a Petition for Review in the Supreme Court and subsequently moved to withdraw its petition.

Applicable Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

– 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 9: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
– Rules of Court, Rule 67: Two-stage expropriation (authority and compensation); provisional deposit with authorized depositary enables possession.
– Republic Act No. 8974: Requires 100% zonal valuation plus value of improvements to be paid directly to owner before possession.
– Republic Act No. 8975: Prohibits lower courts from issuing temporary restraining orders or injunctions against national infrastructure projects.

Expropriation Stages Under Rule 67 and RA 8974

First Stage: Judicial determination of authority and public use; ends with order of expropriation.
Second Stage: Determination of just compensation by court-appointed commissioners; ends with final order fixing compensation.
NPC’s adherence to Rule 67 allowed deposit of assessed value to obtain a writ of possession, but RA 8974 mandates direct payment of zonal valuation and improvements before possession.

Trial Court Proceedings and Errors in Issuing and Recalling Writ of Possession

– NPC deposited provisional amounts (₱3,280 then ₱580,769.93) with Land Bank and secured a writ of possession.
– Respondents successfully moved for payment of additional amounts based on commissioners’ valuation.
– RTC recalled the writ, finding NPC misled the court by relying on deposit rather than direct payment as required by RA 8974.
– Supreme Court held the writ was improperly issued because NPC failed to (1) pay zonal valuation directly to owners and (2) determine improvements’ value pursuant to implementing rules (replacement-cost method by agency).

Distinction Between Provisional Deposit and Just Compensation

Provisional Deposit: Based on zonal valuation; prerequisite for possession; not determinative of final compensation.
Just Compensation: Fair market value ascertained by commissioners and judicial order; constitutionally required equivalent of owner’s loss. NPC’s deposit did not substitute for final payment to vest possession.

Prohibition on Injunctive Relief Under RA 8975

Recall of an improperly issued writ of possession is corrective, not an injunctive remedy. RA 8975 prohibits lower courts from granting temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against national infrastructure projects, but does not bar courts from correcting jurisdictional or procedural errors in expropriation.

Necessity and Public Use in Expropriation

Eminent domain requires genuine public necessity and specific purpose. If the project ceases or shifts purpose, expropriation may be dismissed or land reco

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.