Title
National Transmission Corp. vs. Religious of the Virgin Mary
Case
G.R. No. 245266
Decision Date
Aug 1, 2022
RVM sought just compensation for land used by TransCo since 1966 for transmission lines. SC ruled compensation based on 1966 values, remanded for proper valuation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172238)

Overview of the Legal Proceedings

On October 25, 2006, the Religious of the Virgin Mary filed a Complaint for just compensation and damages against TransCo before the Regional Trial Court in Cagayan de Oro City due to the occupation of a 17,185-square-meter area of their property. TransCo admitted the occupation but contended that the affected area was less and claimed an easement by prescription. The case progressed through various stages, including a court inspection and the evaluation of property valuation reports by appointed commissioners.

Determination of Just Compensation

The Regional Trial Court initially determined in its orders from 2011 to 2014 that just compensation was to be based on the 2006 zonal values, ultimately assessing the value at P1,744,200.00. Following a remand by the Court of Appeals, which ruled just compensation should be based on 2014 valuations, TransCo sought further review. The core dispute revolved around whether just compensation should be reckoned from the date of taking in 1966 or from an advisory later date.

Court's Analysis of Taking

The Supreme Court affirmed the existence of taking in 1966 when the transmission lines were constructed, contradicting the lower courts' findings that delayed acknowledgment of this taking. The Court emphasized that although TransCo came into existence in 2001, it inherited rights and obligations from the National Power Corporation, which originally constructed the line.

Legal Precedent and Reasoning

The Supreme Court cited previous jurisprudence underscoring that just compensation must reflect the property’s value as of the time of taking. It clarified that compensation should not only address property worth but also loss of income potential caused by the property’s occupation. The motion to set compensation based on current values after a significant delay was rejected as it was deemed unjust to penalize the owner by altering the timing for valuation.

Conclusion a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.