NPC v Sangkay
GR NO 165828, August 24, 2011
FACTS:
Pursuant to its legal mandate under Republic Act No. 6395 (An Act
Revising the Charter of the National Power Corporation), NPC
undertook the Agus River Hydroelectric Power Plant Project in the
1970s to generate electricity for Mindanao. The project included the
construction of several underground tunnels to be used in diverting the
water flow from the Agus River to the hydroelectric plants.[
On November 21, 1997, the respondents, Heirs of Macabangkit, as the
owners of land situated in Ditucalan, Iligan City, sued NPC for the
recovery of damages and of the property, with the alternative prayer
for the payment of just compensation.
NPC countered that the Heirs of Macabangkit had no right to
compensation under section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 6395, under which
a mere legal easement on their land was established; that their cause
of action, should they be entitled to compensation, already prescribed
due to the tunnel having been constructed in 1979; and that by reason
of the tunnel being an apparent and continuous easement, any action
arising from such easement prescribed in five years.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Heirs of Macabangkit had right to just
compensation?
HELD:
Yes. NPCs construction of the tunnel constituted taking of the land,
and entitled owners to just compensation.
The Court held in National Power Corporation v. Ibrahim that NPC was
liable to pay not merely an easement fee but rather the full
compensation for land traversed by the underground tunnels
We agree with both the RTC and the CA that there was a full taking on
the part of NPC, notwithstanding that the owners were not completely
and actually dispossessed.
It is settled that the taking of private property for public use, to be
compensable, need not be an actual physical taking or appropriation.
Indeed, the expropriators action may be short of acquisition of title,
physical possession, or occupancy but may still amount to a taking.
Compensable taking includes destruction, restriction, diminution, or
interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common and necessary
use and enjoyment of the property in a lawful manner, lessening or
destroying its value.
It is neither necessary that the owner be wholly deprived of the use of
his property, nor material whether the property is removed from the
possession of the owner, or in any respect changes hands.
As a result, NPC should pay just compensation for the entire land.
The City Government of Quezon City v Ericta
GR NO. L-34915, June 24, 1983
FACTS:
The City Government of Quezon City enacted an ordinance entitled
Ordinance Regulating the Establishment, Maintenance and Operation
of Private Memorial Type Cemetery or Burial Ground Within the
Jurisdiction of Quezon City and Providing Penalties for the Violation
thereof.
The law basically provides that at least six (6) percent of the total area
of the private memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for charity
burial of deceased persons who are paupers and have been residents
of Quezon City for at least five (5) years prior to their death, to be
determined by competent City Authorities.
The City government of Quezon City justified the law by invoking police
power.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the ordinance is an invalid exercise of
police power.
There is no reasonable relation between the setting aside of at least six
(6) percent of the total area of all private cemeteries for charity burial
grounds of deceased paupers and the promotion of health, morals,
good order, safety, or the general welfare of the people.
The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain
area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of
the municipal corporation.
Instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose,
the city passes the burden to private cemeteries.
Hacienda Luisita v PARC
GR no 171101, April 24, 2012
FACTS:
In 1958, the Spanish owners of Compaia General de Tabacos de
Filipinas (Tabacalera) sold Hacienda Luisita and the Central Azucarera
de Tarlac, the sugar mill of the hacienda, to the Tarlac Development
Corporation (Tadeco), then owned and controlled by the Jose Cojuangco
Sr. Group. The Central Bank of the Philippines assisted Tadeco in
obtaining a dollar loan from a US bank. Also, the GSIS extended a
PhP5.911 million loan in favor of Tadeco to pay the peso price
component of the sale, with the condition that the lots comprising the
Hacienda Luisita be subdivided by the applicant-corporation and sold
at cost to the tenants, should there be any, and whenever conditions
should exist warranting such action under the provisions of the Land
Tenure Act. Tadeco however did not comply with this condition.
On May 7, 1980, the martial law administration filed a suit before the
Manila RTC against Tadeco, et al., for them to surrender Hacienda
Luisita to the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) so that the land
can be distributed to farmers at cost. The Manila RTC rendered
judgment ordering Tadeco to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the MAR.
Therefrom, Tadeco appealed to the CA.
On March 17, 1988, during the administration of President Corazon
Cojuangco Aquino, the Office of the Solicitor General moved to
withdraw the governments case against Tadeco, et al. The Court of
Appeals dismissed the case, subject to the PARCs approval of Tadecos
proposed Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) in favor of its farmworkers.
On August 23, 1988, Tadeco organized a spin-off corporation, herein
petitioner Hacienda Luisita Inc., as vehicle to facilitate stock acquisition
by the farmworkers.
On May 9, 1989, some 93% of the then farmworker-beneficiaries
(FWBs) complement of Hacienda Luisita signified in a referendum their
acceptance of the proposed HLIs Stock Distribution Option Plan
(SODP).
On May 11, 1989, the SDOA was formally entered into by Tadeco, HLI,
and the 5,848 qualified FWBs. This attested to by then DAR Secretary
Philip Juico. The SDOA embodied the basis and mechanics of HLIs SDP,
which was eventually approved by the PARC after a follow-up
referendum conducted by the DAR on October 14, 1989, in which 5,117
FWBs, out of 5,315 who participated, opted to receive shares in HLI.
As may be gleaned from the SDOA, included as part of the distribution
plan are: (a) production-sharing equivalent to three percent (3%) of
gross sales from the production of the agricultural land payable to the
FWBs in cash dividends or incentive bonus; and (b) distribution of free
homelots of not more than 240 square meters each to familybeneficiaries.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the HLI is entitled to just compensation
HELD:
The high court affirmed its Nov. 22, 2011 landmark ruling that just
compensation due Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI) should be based on the
valuation of the land on Nov. 21, 1989, the day the Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council (PARC) approved Luisitas stock distribution option agreement
(SDOA).
These lands became subject of the agrarian reform coverage through the
stock distribution scheme only upon the approval of the SDP, that is, on
November 21, 1989.
Even though the compensation due to HLI will still be preliminarily
determined by Department of Agrarian Reform and Land Bureau, subject to
review by the RTC ,the fact that the reckoning point of taking is already
fixed at a certain date should already hasten the proceedings and not further
cause undue hardship on the parties, especially the qualified FWBs.
