Compensations

Dear Atty. Nico,

My wife and I own two real properties located in Tanza, Cavite. In 1980 and 1997, The National Power Corporation (NPC) constructed steel towers and transmission lines for the Bagtas and Tres Cruses 69kV Transmission Lines. Our properties were among those affected by the same.

Consequently, to ensure continued operation, the National Transmission Corporation (TransCo) sought to acquire the said properties for which I intend to file a complaint. My question is: What should be the basis for the payment of just compensation? Is it the fair market value from the time of the taking of the property or from the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation?

Jonna

Dear Jonna,

According to the Supreme Court, the general rule is that just compensation, as stated under Rule 67, Section 4, is determined “as of the date of the taking of the property or of the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. Applying the same in your case, we will have to apply “whichever came first”, which was the taking of the property by NPC in 1980 and 1997.

However, in the case of Spouses Baterna vs TransCo, the Court made a special consideration due to the fact that it “has borne witness to practices whereby the NPC or its successors-in-interest, herein respondent, would unceremoniously traverse private lands, erect massive transmission lines, and occupy substantial portions of property – all without first observing the fundamental requirement of initiating proper expropriation proceedings.” Thus, while the Court reiterates its adherence to Rule 67, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, such reiteration must not be mistaken as toleration of the government’s encroachment without due process.

To temper the inequality that inevitably arises when respondent delays payment despite long-standing occupation, the Court deems it proper to apply the “present value formula” to the subject properties’ value at the time of the taking. Through this method, petitioners are made whole — not only for the value of the properties occupied but also for the opportunity lost resulting from delayed payment.

Atty. Nico A. Antonio