REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF SATURNINO Q. BORBON

FACTS:

The case involves a complaint for expropriation filed by the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) against the respondents, heirs of Saturnino Q. Borbon. NAPOCOR entered the property owned by the respondents without negotiation or consent in order to construct and maintain transmission lines for a power project. The respondents argued that NAPOCOR's entry was done without their consent and rendered the entire property useless for future use.

The parties submitted their objections to the commissioners' reports regarding the value of the property. The respondents insisted on being compensated for the entire property at a rate of P550.00/square meter, while NAPOCOR argued for compensation only for the occupied portion. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, adopting the recommendation of the commissioners.

NAPOCOR appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the ruling with the modification that NAPOCOR should only pay for the occupied portion of the property, still at the rate of P550.00/square meter. NAPOCOR, during the appeal, filed a motion to discontinue the expropriation proceedings, citing the ongoing negotiations for an amicable settlement and the unnecessary need for expropriation due to retired transmission lines. The Court held that the proceedings should be dismissed, but on just and equitable terms.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the concept of "public use" has evolved to include utility, advantage, or productivity for the benefit of the public.

  2. Whether the element of public use should be maintained throughout the proceedings for expropriation.

  3. Whether the expropriation proceedings may be discontinued due to the retirement of the transmission lines.

  4. Whether NAPOCOR is liable for damages and just compensation.

  5. Whether the discontinuance of the expropriation proceedings and eventual return of the property to the respondents means that there is no need to pay just compensation to the respondents.

  6. What compensation should be awarded to the respondents for the disturbance of their property rights during the period of dispossession.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the concept of "public use" has evolved to include utility, advantage, or productivity for the benefit of the public. Public use is now synonymous with "public interest," "public benefit," and "public convenience."

  2. Yes, the element of public use should be maintained throughout the proceedings for expropriation. The expropriator should commit to using the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition for expropriation. If the property is no longer necessary for public use, the expropriator should file a new petition or return the property to its private owner.

  3. Yes, the expropriation proceedings may be discontinued because the retirement of the transmission lines has stripped the proceedings of the element of public use. Continuing with the proceedings would result in an invalid judgment.

  4. Yes, NAPOCOR is liable for damages and just compensation. NAPOCOR entered the property without consent and without paying just compensation. It destroyed fruit trees and plants, divided the property, and rendered it inutile for future use. The Court has consistently ruled that full market value must be paid for properties affected by the transmission lines.

  5. The Court ruled that there is no need to pay just compensation to the respondents because their property would not be taken by NAPOCOR. Instead, NAPOCOR should compensate the respondents for the disturbance of their property rights by paying them actual or other compensatory damages.

  6. The Court held that the compensation should be based on what the respondents actually lost as a result of their dispossession, including the value of the fruit trees, plants, and crops destroyed by NAPOCOR's construction of the transmission lines.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The exercise of the power of eminent domain is not unlimited and should comply with two mandatory requirements: (a) it should be for a particular public purpose, and (b) just compensation should be paid to the property owner.

  • Public use, in the traditional sense, means "use by the public," but it now includes utility, advantage, or productivity for the benefit of the public.

  • The element of public use should be maintained throughout the proceedings for expropriation, and failing to do so would violate the property owner's right to due process of law and justice, fairness, and equity.

  • If it appears at any stage of the expropriation proceedings that the expropriation is not for public use, the action should be dismissed. The dismissal can even happen during the pendency of an appeal.

  • The primordial importance of public use in expropriation proceedings.

  • The duty of the court to dismiss the action if the expropriation is not for some public use.

  • The obligation of the government and its entities to pay just compensation before depriving any person of their property for public use.

  • The high-tension electric current passing through transmission lines perpetually deprives property owners of the normal use of their land, warranting full market value compensation.

  • The time of taking, not the time of filing the action, determines just compensation when possession is taken prior to the expropriation suit.

  • The taking of private property through the exercise of the power of eminent domain is subject to the condition that the property be devoted to the specific public purpose for which it was taken. If this purpose is not initiated or pursued and is peremptorily abandoned, the former owners may seek the reversion of the property, subject to the return of the amount of just compensation received.

  • Compensation for the disturbance of property rights during the period of dispossession should be based on the actual losses suffered by the owner, including the value of any destroyed plants or crops.