DIGEST, CABASAG/FELISA AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION (HAVING BEEN SUBSTITUTED IN LIEU OF THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION), Respondent. G.R. Nos. 231655 and 231670, July 02, 2018

 

Cabasag, Holly-Ann A.        JD-1

 

FELISA AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION (HAVING BEEN SUBSTITUTED IN LIEU OF THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION), Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 231655 and 231670, July 02, 2018

Facts:

The instant case stemmed from a Complaint for recovery of possession with damages or payment of just compensation filed by petitioner Felisa Agricultural Corporation (petitioner) against NPC before the RTC. Petitioner claimed that in 1997, it discovered that the NPC's transmission towers and transmission lines were located within a 19,635-square meter (sq. m.) portion (subject land) of its lands situated in Brgy. Felisa, Bacolod City. Further verification revealed that the transmission towers were constructed sometime before 1985 by NPC which entered the subject land without its knowledge and consent. However, the NPC claimed that they were granted permission by the petitioner’s president on September 21, 1989. It further countered that the lines have been in existence for more than 10 years, a continuous easement of right of way has already been established. 

 

In the course of the proceedings, the parties agreed to the payment of just compensation and settled the case at the price of 400.00/sq. m but proposed compromise did not push through in view of the failure of the office of Solicitor General (OSG) to act on the deed of sale entered into by parties. Subsequently, the petitioner moved that the NPC he immediately ordered to pay the amount equivalent to 100% zonal value of the land in accordance with RA 8974.

 

The RTC granted the motion and directed NPC to pay ₱7,845,000 .00 (100% of zonal value) as initial payment explaining further that the initial payment is not the just compensation.

 

Unperturbed, the NPC filed a petition for certiorari before the CA which amended the decision. It ruled that since the taking of the property occurred sometime in 1985, RA8974 which was approved & took effect subsequent thereto does not apply and the provisions of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court should govern the case.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the CA was correct in holding that Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and not RA 9874 should govern the case for payment of just compensation

 

Held:

Preliminarily, it bears pointing out that the RTC Orders subject of the certiorari petition before the CA merely pertained to the preliminary or provisional determination of the value of the subject land. At that time, the first stage of the expropriation proceedings, i.e., the determination of the validity of the expropriation, has not been completed since no order of expropriation has yet been issued by the RTC, albeit it is not contested that the NPC's entry in the subject land was done for a public purpose, i.e., the construction/installation of transmission towers and lines which fall within the term "national government projects."It is settled that there is no need to determine with reasonable certainty the final amount of just compensation until after the trial court ascertains the provisional amount to be paid.

Statutes are generally applied prospectively unless they expressly allow a retroactive application. It is well known that the principle that a new law shall not have retroactive effect only governs rights arising from acts done under the rule of the former law. However, if a right be declared for the first time by a subsequent law, it shall take effect from that time even though it has arisen from acts subject to the former laws, provided that it does not prejudice another acquired right of the same origin.

In this case, the government had long entered the subject land and constructed the transmission towers and lines. However, petitioner initiated inverse condemnation proceedings after the effectivity of RA 8974 on November 26, 2000; hence, procedurally and substantially, the said law should govern. Notably, the payment of the provisional value of the subject land equivalent to 100% of its current zonal value is declared for the first time by the said law which is evidently more favorable to the landowner than the mere deposit of its assessed value as required by Rule 67. Accordingly, the application of the provisions of RA 8974 to the instant case is beyond cavil. Besides, there is no legal impediment to the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of respondent, as successor of NPC, despite entry to the subject land long before the filing of the inverse condemnation proceedings before the RTC because physical possession gained by entering the property is not equivalent to expropriating it with the aim of acquiring ownership thereon.

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA erred in setting aside the RTC Orders which should be, perforce, reinstated. Accordingly, the case should be remanded to the RTC for the determination of just compensation for the subject land, taking into consideration, the relevant standards set forth under RA 8974.