Case Summary (G.R. No. 172507)
Core Facts
- In November 1995 NPC entered the Asoques’ land to install transmission lines for the 350 KV Leyte-Luzon HVDC project and utilized 4,352 sq. m. for the project.
- Spouses Asoque alleged prior representations by NPC that the corporation would pay for the land portion used and for destroyed improvements. Some coconut trees and other plants were actually cut; the owners were restricted from making improvements that could rise a few meters from the ground under the transmission line.
- Upon demand NPC paid only for destroyed improvements (small disbursement vouchers totaling P17,133.50) and refused to pay for the value of the land portion, invoking Sec. 3-A of RA 6395 to limit compensation for easement to 10% of market value.
Procedural History — Trial Court
- On September 20, 1999 Spouses Asoque filed a Complaint for payment of just compensation and damages (Civil Case No. 737, Branch 31, RTC Calbayog). NPC answered, denied illegal taking, and relied on an acknowledgment receipt for P9,897.00 and a waiver for improvements.
- Pre-trial on May 8, 2000: both parties and counsel initially did not appear and the case was ordered dismissed, but it was reinstated after explanation for counsel’s late arrival; pre-trial reset to May 24, 2000.
- May 24, 2000: NPC and its counsel were absent; RTC allowed Spouses Asoque to present evidence ex parte before a court-appointed commissioner (Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Ferdinand S. Arpon) and dismissed NPC’s counterclaim. NPC’s motions to reset and for reconsideration were denied as late or moot.
- Commissioner proceedings occurred (June–August 2000) and the Commissioner submitted a report (July 19, 2001) recommending a fair market value of P800.00 per sq. m. for the affected land and adoption of provincial schedules for damaged improvements. Parties filed comments and memoranda; case submitted for decision.
- RTC Decision (June 25, 2002): awarded P3,481,600.00 (4,352 sq. m. × P800.00) as just compensation with legal interest from November 1995, and P158,369.00 for improvements with interest. NPC appealed.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- CA Decision (Nov. 21, 2005): affirmed the RTC judgment with modification — deleted the P158,369.00 award for damaged improvements for lack of legal/factual basis; found the ex parte evidence reception and appointment of the Branch Clerk as Commissioner were not improper; validated adoption of the Commissioner’s report as comprehensive and supported by evidence; held that determination of just compensation is a judicial function and cannot be curtailed by RA 6395; found respondents had already been compensated for improvements by disbursement vouchers and failed to prove additional actual damages. NPC’s motion for reconsideration was denied (May 3, 2006).
Supreme Court Procedural Posture
- NPC filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the SC raising four principal assignments of error: (1) affirmance of ex parte presentation deprived NPC of due process; (2) affirmation of appointment and actions of the court-appointed commissioner exceeded authority; (3) the CA erred in directing NPC to pay full land value rather than only an easement fee under RA 6395 Sec. 3-A; and (4) alleged errors in valuation of property and improvements.
- The SC initially denied the Petition for a procedural defect (failed verified statement date) but later reinstated it on motion; parties were allowed to file comments and memoranda.
Issues Framed by the Court
- Whether NPC was deprived of due process when respondents were allowed to present evidence ex parte.
- Whether the appraisal and the court-appointed Commissioner’s conduct exceeded authority.
- Whether NPC is liable only for a simple easement fee under RA 6395 Sec. 3-A or for full compensation.
- Whether the trial court erred in computing the amount of just compensation.
Analysis — Due Process and Ex Parte Evidence
- The SC held that the RTC’s allowance for respondents to present evidence ex parte was authorized by Rule 18, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a plaintiff to present evidence ex parte where the defendant fails to appear.
- NPC’s claim of denial of due process was rejected: attendance at pre-trial is mandatory (Rule 18, Sec. 4); NPC and counsel failed to appear at both pre-trial settings and its motions for postponement were late and thus properly denied. A motion for postponement is not presumed granted and should be filed timely.
- Due process in the procedural context is an opportunity to be heard. NPC received opportunities to be heard subsequently (filed motions for reconsideration, submitted objections, participated in later procedures) and therefore cannot claim deprivation of its day in court. Precedent (cited cases) supports that lapses by counsel do not per se deprive a party of due process when reasonable opportunities to be heard exist.
Analysis — Commissioner Appointment and Authority
- The SC found the appointment of the Branch Clerk of Court as Commissioner and his reception of ex parte evidence lawful under Rule 32, Sections 2–3 and Section 9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The order of reference may specify or limit powers; absent express limitations, a commissioner may regulate hearings, swear witnesses, rule on admissibility, and file a report with findings and conclusions.
- The Commissioner’s valuation was recommendatory; final determination of just compensation remained with the trial court. Rule 67 procedures for appointment of three commissioners apply where the government files expropriation proceedings; in inverse condemnation actions (plaintiff filing for recovery of compensation), Rule 67’s commissioner requirements are not automatically applicable. Precedent establishes that when the government took possession without filing expropriation, it waived the Rule 67 scheme and the court may proceed without the formal three-commissioner appointment.
Analysis — Easement Versus Taking (Just Compensation)
- The SC reiterated that a right-of-way easement can constitute a compensable taking under the power of eminent domain where the easement causes material impairment of value or prevents ordinary use for an indefinite period. The elements of a taking include: unauthorized entry, indefinite or permanent entry, color of legal authority, property devoted to public use, and removal of beneficial enjoyment.
- Case law (PLDT; Andaya; NPC precedents) supports that restrictions imposed by transmission lines (e.g., ban on taller improvements, danger to life and limb, perpetual limitation on use) may materially impair property rights and th
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 172507)
Procedural posture
- Petition for review on certiorari filed by National Power Corporation (NPC) seeking to nullify and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision dated November 21, 2005 and Resolution dated May 3, 2006 in CA‑G.R. CV No. 76313.
- The Court of Appeals had affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, Calbayog City decision directing NPC to pay the value of a 4,352‑square‑meter portion of Spouses Margarito and Tarcinia Asoque’s land used for NPC’s Leyte‑Luzon Transmission Line Project.
- The Supreme Court initially denied the Petition for lack of a verified statement of material date of filing of the Motion for Reconsideration, but on motion for reconsideration reinstated the Petition and required respondents to comment; parties filed comments and memoranda as ordered.
- Supreme Court disposition: Petition DENIED; Court of Appeals Decision AFFIRMED. NPC ordered to pay P3,481,600.00 as just compensation for 4,352 sq.m. with legal interest at 6% per annum from November 1995 until fully paid; respondents to execute Deed of Conveyance upon full payment.
Summary of material facts
- Spouses Margarito and Tarcinia Asoque are registered owners of a coconut land parcel in Barangay Bugtong, Calbayog City, area 59,099 sq.m., covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2376.
- In November 1995, NPC entered the Asoques’ land to install transmission lines for its 350 KV Leyte‑Luzon HVDC Power Transmission Line Project and actually utilized 4,352 sq.m. for the project.
- Respondents allege they were told NPC would pay the value of the portion used and for all improvements destroyed; they suffered actual damages from cutting of coconut trees and other plants and were thereafter prohibited from introducing improvements that could rise a few meters from the ground on the affected area.
- Upon demand, NPC paid only for improvements reportedly destroyed (acknowledgment receipt for P9,897.00 noted) and refused to pay for the actual value of the 4,352 sq.m. area, asserting liability limited to an easement/right‑of‑way fee computed at 10% of market value under Section 3‑A of RA No. 6395, as amended.
Procedural history at trial court
- September 20, 1999: respondents filed Complaint for payment of just compensation and damages (Civil Case No. 737), raffled to RTC Branch 31.
- NPC filed Answer (Feb. 7, 2000) denying illegal utilization, asserting consent and citing an acknowledgment receipt and waiver.
- Pre‑trial on May 8, 2000: both parties and counsel did not appear; the case was ordered dismissed but reinstated after respondents’ counsel explained lateness; pre‑trial reset to May 24, 2000.
- May 24, 2000: NPC and its counsel absent; RTC allowed respondents to present evidence ex parte before a court‑appointed Commissioner and dismissed NPC’s counterclaim.
- NPC filed Urgent Manifestation and Motion to Reset Pre‑trial (denied June 6, 2000) and Motion for Reconsideration (denied June 21, 2000).
- Respondents presented ex parte evidence on June 22, July 24, and August 28, 2000 before Atty. Ferdinand S. Arpon, Branch Clerk of Court, appointed as Commissioner.
- Commissioner submitted report dated July 19, 2001 recommending fair market value of land at P800.00 per sq.m.; recommended adoption of schedule of prevailing market value for trees, plants, crops for improvements.
- Parties filed comments and memoranda; on June 25, 2002 the RTC rendered a Decision awarding respondents (1) P3,481,600.00 as just compensation for 4,352 sq.m. at P800.00 per sq.m. with legal interest from November 1995; and (2) P158,369.00 for improvements with interest from November 1995.
- NPC appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals disposition and findings
- November 21, 2005 Decision: denied NPC’s appeal and affirmed with modification the RTC decision by deleting the P158,369.00 award for damaged improvements for lack of legal and factual basis.
- CA found no impropriety in allowing respondents to present evidence ex parte nor in appointing the Branch Clerk of Court as Commissioner to receive ex parte evidence.
- CA found the Commissioner’s report comprehensive and supported by evidence and found no irregularity in the RTC’s adoption of the report/recommendation.
- CA rejected NPC’s reliance on Section 3‑A of RA 6395 to limit NPC’s liability to a 10% easement fee, holding determination of just compensation is judicial and cannot be diminished by the statute.
- CA found respondents had already been compensated for damaged improvements via disbursement vouchers totalling P17,133.50 and that they failed to present competent proof for additional actual damages.
- NPC’s Motion for Reconsideration before CA denied May 3, 2006.
Petitioner’s assignments of error to the Supreme Court
- (1) RTC erred in permitting respondents to present evidence ex parte, thereby depriving NPC of due process.
- (2) RTC erred in appointing a Commissioner and validating proceedings he conducted; Commissioner lacked authority to appraise and recommend valuation.
- (3) RTC erred in directing NPC to compensate respondents for the value of the land when only an easement/right‑of‑way was acquired (invoking Section 3‑A, RA 6395; claimed entitlement only to easement fee).
- (4) If liable, RTC erred in determining amounts of compensation for property and improvements (valuation errors; reliance on non‑final expropriation cases and supposed inferior Commissioner expertise; asserted City Assessor valuation should prevail—Tax Declaration value P3.31 per sq.m.).
Respondents’ counterarguments before the Supreme Court
- RTC justified in allowing ex parte presentation because NPC and its counsel failed to appear at the May 24, 2000 pre‑trial and NPC’s motion to postpone was filed late.
- Due process satisfied because NPC had fair and reasonable opportunity to defend and to move for reconsideration; NPC filed motions, objections, memoranda and participated post‑ex parte presentation.
- Appointment of Branch Clerk of Court as Commissioner proper and sanctioned by the Rules; Commissioner’s determinations were recommendatory; final determination of just compensation remained the trial judge’s prerogative.
- Section 3‑A RA 6395 does not defeat judicial determination of just compensation; a right‑of‑way easement can constitute a taking under eminent domain when it materially impairs value or ordinary use indefinitely, entitling owner to monetary equivalent of taken portion.
Issues for resolution identified by the Supreme Court
- Whether NPC was deprived of due process when respondents were allowed to present evidence ex parte.
- Whether the property appraisal was valid and whether the court‑appointed Commissioner exceeded his authority in conducting an appraisal and recommending valuation.
- Whether NPC should be made to pay only a simple easement fee (10% under RA 6395) or full compensation for the land traversed.
- Whether the RTC erred in its determination of the amount of just compensation payable to respondents.