NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION (TRANSCO), PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. HEIRS OF LEONCIO NOOT, NAMELY: PAULITA TANIO-NOOT, LYDIA NOOT, SALVACION NOOT-NARANJO, ADELAIDA NOOT-COMBON…
CAMELLO, J.:
The facts are undisputed:
The subject residential land comprises an area of approximately 5,705 square meters, located in Brgy. 26, Gingoog City covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) EP-473[3] of the Registry of Deeds of Gingoog City pursuant to Emancipation Patent No. A-029295 in the name of Leoncio Noot.
By virtue of Republic Act No. 9136, also known as the EPIRA Law,[4] the National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) sought the expropriation of a 917.75 square meters portion of the land of the late Leoncio Noot to be used for its transmission lines.
TRANSCO filed the complaint[5] for eminent domain on 12 May 2005, praying (1) that an order be issued condemning 917.75 sq. m. within the subject land for public use, (2) that three commissioners be appointed to hear the parties, view the premises, assess the damage, and report to the Court the just compensation to be paid to the defendants, (3) that it be authorized to pay the defendants after the determination of the just compensation, and (4) that it be adjudged to have lawful right to enter, take possession, and acquire ownership of the portion of the subject land free from all liens and encumbrances.[6]
On 07 July 2005, the defendants filed their Answer[7] alleging, among other things, that the fair market value of the land is at least P1,000.00 per square meter.
On 18 October 2006, the court a quo, then presided over by Hon. Oscar N. Abella, referred the case to Hon. Avelino C. Pakino, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Gingoog City, for Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR).[8]
Unfortunately, no settlement was reached by the parties because TRANSCO was not amenable to the defendants’ proposed just compensation.[9]
On 16 January 2007, Hon. Avelino Pakino issued an Order[10] returning the case to the court a quo with the observation that “[t]he parties are in accord that pivotal issue of the case hinges on the fixing of just compensation”,[11] and that “[t]he matter on just compensation can be determined with dispatch by the Commissioners to be appointed by the Court.”[12]
On 23 April 2007, TRANSCO filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession[13] alleging that it had already deposited under Certificate of Deposit No. 0001252940[14] in the account name “TRANSCO vs. Leoncio Noot”, with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) the amount of P2,946.00 representing the assessed value of the portion of the subject land.
On 23 May 2007, the court a quo issued a Resolution[15] denying the motion on the ground that, as admitted by TRANSCO, it is already possessing the land subject of expropriation. In the same resolution, the court a quo directed the parties to submit the names of their respective commissioners noting that during the conference which was held in the chambers on 25 April 2007, the parties agreed to the determination of the just compensation by commissioners.[16]
On 16 July 2007, the defendants submitted the name of their commissioner, Nena B. Corona of Purok 3, Brgy. 23, Gingoog City.[17] Then, on 10 August 2007, TRANSCO submitted the name of its commissioner, Christopher A. Timogan, its Right-of-Way Officer assigned at the Northeastern Mindanao Area (NEMA).[18]
On 27 August 2010, the court a quo issued an Order[19] appointing Carlito P. Jomen as chairman of the board of commissioners. Eventually, commissioners Carlito P. Jomen, Nena B. Corona, and Christopher A. Timogan took their respective oaths of office.
On 02 August 2011, the court a quo issued an Order[20] setting the first session of the hearing of commissioners on 06 October 2011 at 1:30 in the afternoon.
On 12 December 2011, the court a quo received the Commissioners’ Report[21] signed by Carlito P. Jomen and Nena B. Corona. The report reads:
Pursuant to Court Order of Judge Giovanni Alfred H. Navarro dated August 2, 2011 relative to the above-entitled case “to ascertain the just compensation for the property sought to be taken,” the court appointed [sic] Commissioners had met on October 6, 2011 at RTC, Branch 27 this City. Present during the said meeting were Carlito P. Jomen REB as Chairman, Nena B. Corona, member representing the Heirs of Leoncio Noot, as Commissioners, Christopher A. Timogan as member Commissioner representing TRANSCO was absent. Also present were Atty. Benjamin Guimong, counsel for the said Heirs, and Lydia Noot Handerson one of the Heirs was likewise present. The rest of the parties notified by this Court were absent.
After ocular inspection, deliberation, and evaluation on the real estate values in the neighbourhood of subject residential area, Commissioners Carlito P. Jomen and Nena B. Corona have pegged the current market value of said residential lot at P800.00/sq. m. The total area sought by TRANSCO is 917.75 sq. m., which is a portion of Lot 10941, Cad-295 located at barangay 26, Gingoog City under OCT EP-473 and the corresponding just compensation thereof is P734,200.00 to the Heirs of Leoncio Noot.
The Commissioners’ compensation for their services rendered in this case is left to the sound discretion of the Honorable Court.
The Board of Commissioners hereby certifies to the accuracy ad correctness of the foregoing valuation, this 6th day of December 2011 at Gingoog City, Philippines.
On 14 December 2011, the court a quo issued an Order[22] directing the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Alfredo Z. Gomez, to serve copies of the report on all interested parties and their counsels with notice that they are allowed ten (10) days to file objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire.
On 30 January 2012, the defendants filed their Compliance[23] manifesting that they have no objection to the findings in the report.
On 27 April 2012, TRANSCO filed its Comment on the Commissioners’ Report[24] alleging that the commissioners did not state in the report the factual or legal basis for fixing the value of the subject land at P800.00 per square meter. It then prayed that a clarificatory hearing be conducted in order for the commissioners to explain the findings in the report.
On 30 May 2012, the court a quo issued an Order[25] setting the hearing of the Commissioners’ Report on 08 August 2012 at 8:30 in the morning.
In the 08 August 2012 hearing, TRANSCO, through counsel, filed a motion to be allowed to conduct a re-validation survey of the subject land, and the court a quo granted the motion, directing the defendants to allow TRANSCO to conduct a re-validation survey of the subject land within 25 days.[26]
In an Order dated 08 August 2012,[27] the court a quo recommitted the Commissioners’ Report for further hearing on grounds that it is not a full and accurate report of all the proceedings and that the finding of just compensation has no factual basis. The court a quo set the hearing on 07 September 2012 at 10:00 o’clock in the morning, directing the commissioners to give all the parties the opportunity to introduce evidence on the just compensation of the subject land.
On 01 October 2012, the court a quo received the second Commissioners’ Report[28] signed by Carlito P. Jomen and Nena B. Corona. The report reads:
Pursuant to Court Order of Judge Giovanni Alfred H. Navarro dated August 8, 2012, the court appointed [sic] Commissioners namely: Carlito P. Jomen as Chairman, Nena B. Corona representing the heirs and Christopher A. Timogan representing TRANSCO as members, re-conducted a hearing on September 7, 2012 to determine “the just compensation with factual basis as, but not limited to, the market value of the adjoining properties, the consequential damages to the property not taken and the consequential benefits to be derived by the defendants, if any.”
Present during the proceeding were: Carlito P. Jomen, Nena B. Corona, Commissioners; Atty. Benjamin Guimong, counsel for defendants; Paulita T. Noot, Salvacion Noot Naranjo, and Adelaida Noot Combong, heirs of Leoncio D. Noot.
Duly notified by the Court, with proof of service on file with the Clerk of Court; Christopher A. Timogan a member representing the plaintiff; Attys. Leon G. Tapel, Jr. and Rommel M. Alonto, legal counsels for the plaintiff were absent from the proceedings.
In view of the foregoing and for a speedy resolution of this case, the Commissioners hereby render its report as follows:
A. Total area affected as traversed by 69 KV transmission line 917.75 sq. m. conservatively valued @ P800.00 per sq. m. ——– P734,200.00
Add: Commissioners’ fee 10% value-P73,420.00Total value of land affected ——– P 807,620.00 B. Consequential Damages Incurred by Defendants:
B.1 Loss of Income from the Land -P 405,000.00
B.2 Loss of backyard income from:Hog Raising ——————- P 201,600.00
Poultry Raising ————— P 317,520.00B.3 Cost of Relocation and Rebuilding the House
of Leoncio D. Noot ————–P 120,000.00Total value of Consequential Damages ———— P1,044,120.00 Total Value of the Land and Consequential Damages — P1,851,740.00 We certify that the full and accurate valuation reports are [sic] fair, true, and accurate to our best knowledge and belief.
Prepared and signed this 21th day of September, 2012 in Gingoog City.[29]
In a resignation letter dated 19 October 2012,[30] Christopher A. Timogan stated that he could no longer discharge his duty as a commissioner because of his work at the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines.
On 29 October 2012, TRANSCO asked for time to submit its comment on the report.[31] The court a quo granted the request and gave TRANSCO a non-extendible period of 30 days within which to submit its comment on the report.[32]
On 16 November 2012, the court a quo filed its Comment of the Commissioners’ Report.[33]
On 27 February 2013, the court a quo rendered a Judgment,[34] which decreed to wit:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
- Ordering the National Transmission Corporation to pay the defendants the amount of P458,875.00 as just compensation for the 917.75 square-meter portion of Lot No. 10941, Cad-295 and the amount of P120,000.00 as disturbance compensation for the removal and transfer of the latter’s house;
- Ordering all the defendants, upon National Transmission Corporation’s payment of the full amount, to convey to the National Transmission Corporation the 917.75 square-meter portion of Lot No. 10941, Cad-295.
- Ordering the National Transmission Corporation to pay Carlito P. Jomen the amount of P5,000.00 and Nena B. Corona the amount of P5,000.00 as fees for acting as commissioners; and
- Ordering the Land Bank of the Philippines to release to the National Transmission Corporation the amount of P2,946.00 which the latter deposited under the account name “TRANSCO vs. Leoncio Noot” using Certificate of Deposit No. 0001252940.
SO ORDERED.[35]
On 27 March 2013, TRANSCO filed a Notice of Appeal,[36] to which the court a quo gave due course in an Order dated 17 June 2013.[37]
TRANSCO ascribed to the court a quo this lone error, to wit:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED ON THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION BASED ON INCOMPETENT AND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.[38]
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker’s gain, but the owner’s loss. The word “just” is used to intensify the meaning of the word “compensation” and to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample. Such “just”-ness of the compensation can only be attained by using reliable and actual data as bases in fixing the value of the condemned property. [39]
It is well to remember that the concept of just compensation does not mean fairness to the property owner alone. It must also be just to the public which ultimately bears the cost of expropriation.[40] Thus, trial courts are required to be more circumspect in its evaluation of just compensation due the property owner, considering that eminent domain cases involve the expenditure of public funds.
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8974[41] enumerates the standards to aid in the determination of just compensation, to wit:
Section 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of Expropriation Proceedings or Negotiated Sale. – In order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the court may consider, among other well-established factors, the following relevant standards:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)
In Republic v. Heirs of Spouses Bautista,[42] the petitioner questioned the Court’s reliance on the Commissioners Report which allegedly failed to consider all factors prescribed by law specifically RA 8974 in determining just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled:
The only legal question raised by the petitioner relates to the commissioners and the trial courts alleged failure to take into consideration, in arriving at the amount of just compensation, Section 5 of RA 8974 enumerating the standards for assessing the value of expropriated land taken for national government infrastructure projects. What escapes petitioner, however, is that the courts are not bound to consider these standards; the exact wording of the said provision is that “in order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the courts may consider” them. The use of the word “may’ in the provision is construed as permissive and operating to confer discretion. In the absence of a finding of abuse, the exercise of such discretion may not be interfered with. For this case, the Court finds no such abuse of discretion.
[Emphasis supplied.]
In Republic v. Asia Pacific Integrated Steel Corporation,[43] the Supreme Court said that “the final conclusions on the proper amount of just compensation can only be made after due ascertainment of the requirements set forth under RA 8974 and not merely based on the declarations of the parties.”
In this case, TRANSCO argued that the court a quo’s valuation of the land at P500.00 per square meter is utterly baseless.
TRANSCO pointed out that the court a quo merely relied on the Tax Declarations on the land and did not consider the best indicium of the amount of just compensation ? the current BIR zonal valuation. It argued that the zonal value of the real property in a Tax Declaration is for purpose of computing any internal revenue tax on the property, which cannot, on its own, serve as a sole controlling factor in the determination of just compensation especially where there are other available means to establish proper valuation. It argued that since both the current BIR zonal valuation and the valuation in the Tax Declarations on the land reflect a sizably lesser amount than P500.00, the valuation of the land at P500.00/sq.m. is thus excessive.
TRANSCO further argued that the court a quo did not justify its decision in fixing the amount of disturbance compensation at P120,000.00. It claimed that there is no proof presented to show the costs or, at least, an estimation of the costs for the relocation and rebuilding of the house of Leoncio Noot.
We deny the appeal.
A cursory review of the records reveal that the court a quo took into consideration several of the standards enumerated in Section 5, RA 8974 in arriving at the amount of just compensation, specifically:
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Thus, it cannot be said that the court a quo had no basis for its valuation of the subject land.
Here, the landowner claimed that the fair market value of the land is at least P1,000.00/sq.m. while the commissioners, after ocular inspection and evaluation of the real estate values in the neighborhood of the subject land, pegged its conservative value at P800.00/sq.m. The court a quo did not totally accept the Commissioners’ Report; instead, it fixed the just compensation at P500.00/sq.m. It explained, thus:
This Court cannot accept the portion of the second Commissioners’ Report fixing the just compensation for the property subject of expropriation at P800.00 per square meter. The said recommendation is not supported by the documents attached to the Commissioners’ Report except the Certification of Barangay Captain Carmelita R. Beoyo who does not appear to be an expert in the appraisal of real properties. The Subdivision Plan of Lot No. 10941 and Tax Declaration Nos. E-003301, E-003302, E-003303, and E-003305, which are attached to the Commissioners’ Report, reveal that Lot No. 10941 has already been partitioned among defendants Adelaida Noot Combong (Lot No. 10941-A) Lydia Noot Henderson (Lot No. 10941-B), Paulita T. Noot (Lot No. 10941-C, and Lydia Noot Henderson (Lot NO. 10941-E). The said tax declarations show that all the portions of Lot No. 10941 were declared by the said defendants in the year 2009 to have a market value of only P350.00 per square meter. Tax Declaration No. E-003259 issued in the name of Editha S. Odchigue over Lot No. 10718-B-6-J-1, which is adjacent to Lot. No. 10941 also shows that the market value of the lot is only P350.00 per square meter in the year 2009. Considering, however, that Lot No. 10941 is now being used for residential purposes and that the parties failed to indicate in their pleadings the date when the NPC erected the wooden posts on the property subject of expropriation, this Court finds that the amount of P500.00 per square meter of P458,875 for the 917.75 square-meter portion of Lot No. 10941 is “just” not only to the defendants but also to the plaintiff. This Court also finds that the defendants are entitled to a reasonable disturbance compensation in the amount of P120,000.00 for the removal and transfer of their house.
Anent the defendants’ counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees, this Court has no recourse but to dismiss the same. The last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil procedure provides that “no counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading.”[44]
As can be clearly gleaned from the Judgment, the court a quo did not only consider the market value as reflected in the Tax Declaration of the subject land at P350.00/sq.m. The court a quo took note of the market value of the adjacent property and the undisputed fact that the land has been converted and used for residential purposes.
Concededly, the court a quo did not follow the BIR zonal valuation. Yet, this Court cannot subscribe to TRANSCO’s argument that the best indicium of the amount of just compensation for the subject land is the BIR zonal valuation at P350.00/sq.m. The BIR zonal valuation is only for the purpose of determining the correct amount of transfer taxes. It is not intended to be equivalent to the fair market value of the property for purposes of eminent domain.
In Republic v. Asia Pacific Integrated Steel Corporation,[45] the Supreme Court said:
Zonal valuation is just one of the indices of the fair market value of real estate. By itself, this index cannot be the sole basis of “just compensation” in expropriation cases. As this Court ruled in Leca Realty Corporation v. Rep. of the Phils. [G.R. No. 155605, 27 September 2006]:
The Republic is incorrect, however, in alleging that the values were exorbitant, merely because they exceeded the maximum zonal value of real properties in the same location where the subject properties were located. The zonal value may be one, but not necessarily the sole, index of the value of a realty. National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial [G.R. No. 150936, 18 August 2004] held thus:
“x x x [Market value] is not limited to the assessed value of the property or to the schedule of market values determined by the provincial or city appraisal committee. However, these values may serve as factors to be considered in the judicial valuation of the property.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
Thus, TRANSCO cannot insist on the fixing of the valuation of just compensation according only to BIR zonal valuation at P350.00/sq.m.
It is well-settled that the determination of “just compensation” in eminent domain cases is a judicial function.[46] Any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes may serve only as a guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation, but it may not substitute the court’s own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount.[47]
In this case, this Court sees no reason to disturb the factual findings of the court a quo on the valuation of the subject land. The court a quo judiciously determined the fair market value of the subject property after an evaluation of different factors. The amount fixed by the court a quo for just compensation at P500.00/sq.m. or a total of P458,875.00 for the 917.75 square-meter portion of the subject land does not appear to be grossly exorbitant or otherwise unjustified.
Neither is this Court convinced that the disturbance compensation fixed at P120,000.00 is unjustified. The Commissioners’ Report shows how the amount of disturbance compensation is arrived at through a detailed description of the materials used for the relocation and rebuilding of the house of the late Leoncio Noot.
This Court finds neither error nor abuse of discretion on the part of the court a quo in fixing the just compensation and the disturbance compensation due the heirs of Leoncio Noot.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appealed Judgment is AFFIRMED in all respects.
SO ORDERED.
Inting and Perez, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, pp. 227-239.
[2] Judge Rustico D. Paderanga, presiding.
[3] Records, pp. 10-11.
[4] Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001.
[5] Records, pp. 2-7.
[6] Records, pp. 6-7.
[7] Records, pp. 22-26.
[8] See Order dated 18 October 2006; Records, p. 62.
[9] See Order dated 16 January 2007; Records, pp. 66-69.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Records, p. 68.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Records, pp. 85-87.
[14] Records, pp. 88-90.
[15] Records, p. 94.
[16] Records, p. 94.
[17] Records, p. 101.
[18] Records, p. 111.
[19] Records, p. 156.
[20] Records, p. 158.
[21] Records, pp. 159-160.
[22] Records, p. 161.
[23] Records, p. 180.
[24] Records, pp. 182-183.
[25] Records, p. 185
[26] Records, pp. 188-189.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Records, pp. 192-193.
[29] Records, pp. 192-193.
[30] Records, p. 217.
[31] See Order dated 29 October 2012; Records, pp. 215-216.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Records, pp. 219-224.
[34] Records, pp. 227-239.
[35] Records, pp. 238.
[36] Records, pp. 240-241
[37] Records, p. 247.
[38] Rollo, p. 32.
[39] Republic v. Asia Pacific Integrated Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 192100, 12 March 2014 citing National Power Corporation v. Diato-Bernal, G.R. No. 180979, 15 December 2010 in turn citing Republic v. Libunao, G.R. No. 166553, 30 July 2009.
[40] Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 147245, 31 March 2005.
[41] An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes.
[42] G.R. No. 181218, 28 January 2013.
[43] G.R. No. 192100, 12 March 2014 citing Bases Conversion Development Authority v. Reyes, G.R. No. 194247, 19 June 2013, in turn citing Republic v. Judge Gingoyon, 514 Phil. 657, 698 (2005).
[44] Decision; Record, pp. 237- 238.
[45] G.R. No. 192100, 12 March 2014.
[46] National Power Corporation v. Purefoods Corporation, G.R. No. 160725, 12 September 2008 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, G.R. No.164876, 23 January 2006.
[47] Id., citing Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603, 29 April 1987. See also Republic v. Libunao, G.R. No. 166553, 30 July 2009.