NAPOCOR vs. Gutierrez (G.R. No. L-60077)

Facts:

National Power Corporation a GOCC vested with Eminent Domain power initiated negotiations for right of easement to construct transmission lines to several lots. The commissioners appointed recommended P1.00/sqm easement fee for Gutierrez lot. This was countered by Gutierrez with P10.00/sqm as disturbance compensation. Court countered with P5.00/sqm. The lower court granted P10.00/sqm but this was appealed and was reduced to P5.00/sqm. Still not satisfied NPC appealed to CA. CA sustained the decision of the lower court.

NPC contend that full ownership is retained by the private respondents and they are not totally deprived of the use of the land. They can continue planting the same agricultural crops, except those that would result in contact with the wires. On this premise, petitioner submits that if full market value is required, then full transfer of ownership is only the logical equivalent.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner should be made to pay simple easement fee or full compensation for the land traversed by its transmission lines.

Held:

While it is true that plaintiff are only after a right-of-way easement, it nevertheless perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as manifested by the imposition by the plaintiff upon defendants that below said transmission lines no plant higher than three (3) meters is allowed. Furthermore, because of the high-tension current conveyed through said transmission lines, danger to life and limbs that may be caused beneath said wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to cap it all plaintiff only pays the fee to defendants once, while the latter shall continually pay the taxes due on said affected portion of their property.

In the case at bar, the easement of right-of-way is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain. Considering the nature and effect of the installation of the 230 KV Mexico-Limay transmission lines, the limitation imposed by NPC against the use of the land for an indefinite period deprives private respondents of its ordinary use.

For these reasons, the owner of the property expropriated is entitled to a just compensation.

Wherefore, the assailed decision of CA is AFFIRMED.