Title
National Power Corp. vs. Spouses Malijan
Case
G.R. No. 211731
Decision Date
Dec 7, 2016
NAPOCOR expropriated property in 1972; just compensation based on 1972 value, not 2005 filing. No exemplary damages or attorney’s fees awarded.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175540)

Background and Initial Proceedings

NAPOCOR initiated an expropriation proceeding for the aforementioned property, without objection from the Spouses Malijan concerning the taking itself. The primary dispute centered on the issue of just compensation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), following an ocular inspection and based on local market conditions, determined just compensation to be PhP 3,500.00 per square meter, totaling PhP 13,674,500.00. This evaluation was anchored on the property’s potential commercial or industrial value, taking into account its use as a principal access road to NAPOCOR’s Mak-ban Geothermal Power Plant.

Dispute Over the Valuation Date

NAPOCOR contested the RTC's appraisal, asserting that just compensation should reflect the property's value in 1972, the year they claimed to have taken possession of the property. They cited Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which allows for valuation at the time of taking or filing, whichever comes first. Conversely, the Spouses Malijan maintained that NAPOCOR failed to adequately demonstrate that the value from 1972 should apply, arguing that their claim about taking was belated in the proceedings.

RTC Decision

On February 22, 2008, the RTC ruled against NAPOCOR, affirming the earlier compensation value. It reasoned that allowing NAPOCOR to pay based on 1972 values would enable them to gain an undue advantage after over three decades of occupation without compensation action. Thus, the RTC ordered compensation based on present valuations rather than historical ones.

Court of Appeals Ruling

NAPOCOR appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which issued a decision on June 13, 2012, reversing the RTC ruling. The CA established that the taking occurred in 1972 and ruled for valuation based on the fair market value at that time, imposing additional penalties in the form of exemplary damages (PhP 200,000.00) and attorney’s fees (PhP 100,000.00).

Arguments Raised by the Respondents

The Spouses Malijan, while appealing the CA’s decision, raised several points:

  1. Insufficient Evidence of Taking in 1972: They argued that there was no evidence to show complete taking occurred in 1972.
  2. Just Compensation Calculation: They contended that the CA’s directive to compute compensation based on 1972 values was erroneous.
  3. Inapplicability of Precedent: They disputed the CA's reliance on the Eusebio v. Luis case as being non-analogous to their context.

NAPOCOR's Counter-Arguments

In its petition, NAPOCOR challenged the imposition of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, suggesting that they lacked a factual basis because their actions did not reflect bad faith or an intention to harm the landowners.

Supreme Court's Analysis of Facts and Law

Consideration of the legal framework indicated that appellate courts’ factual findings are generally conclusive unless extreme errors or injustices are apparent. The Supreme Court acknowledged conflicting findings of fact between the RTC and the CA, necessitating a review to determine just compensation and the validity of the damages awarded.

Final Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the Malijan

...continue reading

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