Heirs of Raisa Dimao v. National Grid Corporation of the Philippines

 

Heirs of Raisa Dimao v. National Grid Corporation of the Philippines

G.R. No. 254020

March 1, 2023

 

FACTS:

                The National Power Corporationconstructed the Baloi-Agus 2 138kV Transmission Line (BATL). Pursuant to the "Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001," the National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) assumed the electrical transmission functions, including the authority and responsibility for the planning, construction, operation and maintenance of the NPC's high voltage transmission facilities, including grid interconnections and ancillary services. Meanwhile, respondent assumed the management, operation, and maintenance of TRANSCO's nationwide transmission business. To perform its mandate, respondent needed to clear and cut tall vegetation and other hazardous improvements underneath and within the transmission line right-of-way corridors of the lots.

Respondent instituted expropriation proceedings involving 11,640 square meters on Lot No. 104, Gss-10- 000286, located in Barangay Basagad, Baloi, Lanao del Norte, covered by Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo (KOT) Blg. P-19-080, registered in the name of the late Raisa A. Dimao (Subject Property). Respondent prayed among other things, for the issuance of a writ of possession in its favor, authorizing it to enter and take possession of the subject property for the maintenance of the BATL. Subsequently, respondent deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines the amount of P1,756,400.00, representing 100% of the BIR Zonal Value of the subject property. Consequently, the RTC of Lanao Del Norte, Branch 4 issued a writ of possession. Thus, respondent was placed in possession of the subject property. Petitioners filed an Answer demanding the payment of just compensation, with accrued interest and rentals from the time of the taking of the subject property.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not petitioners are entitled to just compensation.

 

HELD:

                No. Petitioners, not being the registered owners of the subject property during the construction of the BATL in 1978, are not entitled to just compensation. A unique circumstance obtains in this case — the BATL was constructed in 1978, while Dimao, petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, obtained a free patent over the subject property only on October 2, 2012. Glaringly, at the time of the construction of the BATL, the government was still the owner of the subject property. Accordingly, petitioners are not entitled to just compensation. The following circumstances further bar petitioners from claiming just compensation: First, Dimao's application for a free patent evidences her acknowledgment of the public nature of the subject property.

Remarkably, in Yabut v. Alcantara, the Court held that the filing of a free patent application constitutes an admission that the property is a public land, and thus, the applicant may not be regarded as the land's rightful owner. Additionally, the mere possession of a land for 30 years does not automatically divest the land of its public character. On this score, petitioners may not argue that the issuance of the homestead patent in their favor bolsters their possession and ownership of the subject property since 1955. Besides, petitioners failed to present an iota of proof of their ownership or even their possession prior to 1978. At any rate, even assuming that they have been in possession of the subject property since 1955, no law, rule or jurisprudence authorizes an award of just compensation to a mere possessor of the land.

Further, it is highly questionable that petitioners, who claim to have been in possession of the subject property prior to 1978, never questioned NPC's entry thereto; claimed damages for the destruction of their alleged property; or even instituted inverse expropriation proceedings. Their complete silence for many years foments doubt on their claim of possession. Second, petitioners' title over the subject property stemmed from a homestead patent and is thus, subject to the 60 meter right-of-way in favor of the Government provided in Section 112 of C.A. No. 141, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 635: Sec. 112. Said land shall further be subject to a right-of-way not exceeding sixty (60) meters in width for public highways, railroads, irrigation ditches, aqueducts, telegraph and telephone lines, airport runways, including sites necessary for terminal buildings and other government structures needed for full operation of the airport, as well as areas and sites for government buildings for Resident and/or Project Engineers needed in the prosecution of government[1]infrastructure projects, and similar works as the Government or any public or quasi-public service or enterprise, including mining or forest concessionaires, may reasonably require for carrying on their business, with damages for the improvements only . Records reveal that the portion of the subject property traversed by the BATL is only 30 meters wide and is thus well-within the 60-meter width right- of-way. The fact that the BATL is operated by respondent does not foreclose the application of Section 112, which clearly covers projects undertaken by quasi-public entities. At best, petitioners may only claim damages for the improvements in the subject property.