Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

106804 August 12, 2004

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS a ! ANTONINO PO"RE, respondents.

#ECISION

CARPIO, J.$ T%& Cas& efore us is a petition for revie! " of the #$ March "%%& Decision & and "' (u)ust "%%& Resolution of the Court of (ppeals in C(*+.R. CV No. ",%#$. -he Court of (ppeals affir.ed the Decision # of the Re)ional -rial Court, ranch "/, -abaco, (lba0 in Civil Case No. -*11&. T%& A t&'&!& ts Petitioner National Po!er Corporation 23NPC34 is a public corporation created to )enerate )eother.al, h0droelectric, nuclear and other po!er and to trans.it electric po!er nation!ide. ' NPC is authori5ed b0 la! to ac6uire propert0 and e7ercise the ri)ht of e.inent do.ain. Private respondent (ntonino Pobre 23Pobre34 is the o!ner of a ,8,%,% s6uare*.eter land 23Propert034 located in aran)a0 ano, Municipalit0 of -i!i, (lba0. -he Propert0 is covered b0 -C- No. '$,/ and Subdivision Plan ""*%/$%. In "%,#, Pobre be)an developin) the Propert0 as a resort*subdivision, !hich he na.ed as 3-i!i 9ot Sprin)s Resort Subdivision.3 On "& :anuar0 "%,,, the then Court of ;irst Instance of (lba0 approved the subdivision plan of the Propert0. -he Re)ister of Deeds thus cancelled -C- No. '$,/ and issued independent titles for the approved lots. In "%,%, Pobre started advertisin) and sellin) the lots. On ' (u)ust "%,1, the Co..ission on Volcanolo)0 certified that ther.al .ineral !ater and stea. !ere present beneath the Propert0. -he Co..ission on Volcanolo)0 found the ther.al .ineral !ater and stea. suitable for do.estic use and potentiall0 for co..ercial or industrial use. NPC then beca.e involved !ith Pobre<s Propert0 in three instances. ;irst !as on "8 ;ebruar0 "%/& !hen Pobre leased to NPC for one 0ear eleven lots fro. the approved subdivision plan. Second !as so.eti.e in "%//, the first ti.e that NPC filed its e7propriation case a)ainst Pobre to ac6uire an 8,#"".,$ s6uare*.eter portion of the Propert0. 1 On &# October "%/%, the trial court ordered the e7propriation of the lots upon NPC<s pa0.ent of P&1 per s6uare .eter or a total a.ount of P&$/,/%$. NPC be)an drillin) operations and construction of stea. !ells. =hile this first e7propriation case !as pendin), NPC du.ped !aste .aterials be0ond the site a)reed upon b0 NPC !ith Pobre. -he du.pin) of !aste .aterials altered the topo)raph0 of so.e portions of the Propert0. NPC did not act on Pobre<s co.plaints and NPC continued !ith its du.pin). -hird !as on " Septe.ber "%/%, !hen NPC filed its second e7propriation case a)ainst Pobre to ac6uire an additional 1,11' s6uare .eters of the Propert0. -his is the sub>ect of this petition. NPC needed the lot for the

construction and .aintenance of Na)la)bon) =ell Site ;*&$, pursuant to Procla.ation No. /#% , and Republic (ct No. 1$%&./ NPC i..ediatel0 deposited P1,1',.#, !ith the Philippine National an?. -he deposit represented "$@ of the total .ar?et value of the lots covered b0 the second e7propriation. On , Septe.ber "%/%, NPC entered the 1,11' s6uare*.eter lot upon the trial court<s issuance of a !rit of possession to NPC. On "$ Dece.ber "%8', Pobre filed a .otion to dis.iss the second co.plaint for e7propriation. Pobre clai.ed that NPC da.a)ed his Propert0. Pobre pra0ed for >ust co.pensation of all the lots affected b0 NPC<s actions and for the pa0.ent of da.a)es. On & :anuar0 "%81, NPC filed a .otion to dis.iss the second e7propriation case on the )round that NPC had found an alternative site and that NPC had alread0 abandoned in "%8" the pro>ect !ithin the Propert0 due to Pobre<s opposition. On 8 :anuar0 "%81, the trial court )ranted NPC<s .otion to dis.iss but the trial court allo!ed Pobre to adduce evidence on his clai. for da.a)es. -he trial court ad.itted Pobre<s e7hibits on the da.a)es because NPC failed to ob>ect. On #$ (u)ust "%81, the trial court ordered the case sub.itted for decision since NPC failed to appear to present its evidence. -he trial court denied NPC<s .otion to reconsider the sub.ission of the case for decision. NPC filed a petition for certiorari 8 !ith the then Inter.ediate (ppellate Court, 6uestionin) the #$ (u)ust "%81 Order of the trial court. On "& ;ebruar0 "%8/, the Inter.ediate (ppellate Court dis.issed NPC<s petition but directed the lo!er court to rule on NPC<s ob>ections to Pobre<s docu.entar0 e7hibits. On &/ March "%8/, the trial court ad.itted all of Pobre<s e7hibits and upheld its Order dated #$ (u)ust "%81. -he trial court considered the case sub.itted for decision. On &% (pril "%8/, the trial court issued its Decision in favor of Pobre. -he dispositive portion of the decision readsA =9ERE;ORE, pre.ises considered, >ud).ent is hereb0 rendered in favor of the defendant and a)ainst the plaintiff, orderin) the plaintiff to pa0 unto the defendantA 2"4 -he su. of -9REE MIBBION ;OCR 9CNDRED ;OR-D EI+9- -9OCS(ND ;OCR 9CNDRED ;I;-D 2P#,''8,'1$.$$4 PESOS !hich is the fair .ar?et value of the subdivision of defendant !ith an area of si7t0 ei)ht thousand nine hundred si7t0 nine 2,8,%,%4 s6uare .eters, plus le)al rate of interest per annu. fro. Septe.ber ,, "%/% until the !hole a.ount is paid, and upon pa0.ent thereof b0 the plaintiff the defendant is hereb0 ordered to e7ecute the necessar0 Deed of Conve0ance or (bsolute Sale of the propert0 in favor of the plaintiffE 2&4 -he su. of ONE 9CNDRED ;I;-D -9OCS(ND 2P"1$,$$$.$$4 PESOS for and as attorne0<s fees. Costs a)ainst the plaintiff. SO ORDERED.% On "# :ul0 "%8/, NPC filed its .otion for reconsideration of the decision. On #$ October "%8/, the trial court issued its Order den0in) NPC<s .otion for reconsideration. NPC appealed to the Court of (ppeals. On #$ March "%%&, the Court of (ppeals upheld the decision of the trial court but deleted the a!ard of attorne0<s fees. -he dispositive portion of the decision readsA =9ERE;ORE, b0 reason of the fore)oin), the Decision appealed fro. is (;;IRMED !ith the .odification that the a!ard of attorne0<s fees is deleted. No pronounce.ent as to costs. SO ORDERED."$ -he Court of (ppeals denied NPC<s .otion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated "' (u)ust "%%&.

T%& Ru() g o* t%& T+)a( Cou+t In its ,%*pa)e decision, the trial court recounted in )reat detail the scale and scope of the da.a)e NPC inflicted on the Propert0 that Pobre had developed into a resort*subdivision. Pobre<s Propert0 suffered 3per.anent in>ur03 because of the noise, !ater, air and land pollution )enerated b0 NPC<s )eother.al plants. -he construction and operation of the )eother.al plants drasticall0 chan)ed the topo)raph0 of the Propert0 .a?in) it no lon)er viable as a resort*subdivision. -he che.icals e.itted b0 the )eother.al plants da.a)ed the natural resources in the Propert0 and endan)ered the lives of the residents. NPC did not onl0 ta?e the 8,#"".,$ s6uare*.eter portion of the Propert0, but also the re.ainin) area of the ,8,%,% s6uare*.eter Propert0. NPC had rendered Pobre<s entire Propert0 useless as a resort*subdivision. -he Propert0 has beco.e useful onl0 to NPC. NPC .ust therefore ta?e Pobre<s entire Propert0 and pa0 for it. -he trial court found the follo!in) bad)es of NPC<s bad faithA 2"4 NPC allo!ed five 0ears to pass before it .oved for the dis.issal of the second e7propriation caseE 2&4 NPC did not act on Pobre<s plea for NPC to eli.inate or at least reduce the da.a)e to the Propert0E and 2#4 NPC sin)led out Pobre<s Propert0 for piece.eal e7propriation !hen NPC could have e7propriated other properties !hich !ere not affected in their entiret0 b0 NPC<s operation. -he trial court found the >ust co.pensation to be P1$ per s6uare .eter or a total of P#,''8,'1$ for Pobre<s ,8,%,% s6uare*.eter Propert0. NPC failed to contest this valuation. Since NPC !as in bad faith and it e.plo0ed dilator0 tactics to prolon) this case, the trial court i.posed le)al interest on the P#,''8,'1$ fro. , Septe.ber "%/% until full pa0.ent. -he trial court a!arded Pobre attorne0<s fees of P"1$,$$$. T%& Ru() g o* t%& Cou+t o* A,,&a(s -he Court of (ppeals affir.ed the decision of the trial court. 9o!ever, the appellate court deleted the a!ard of attorne0<s fees because Pobre did not properl0 plead for it. T%& Issu&s NPC clai.s that the Court of (ppeals co..itted the follo!in) errors that !arrant reversal of the appellate court<s decisionA ". In not annullin) the appealed Decision for havin) been rendered b0 the trial court !ith )rave abuse of discretion and !ithout >urisdictionE &. In holdin) that NPC had 3ta?en3 the entire Propert0 of PobreE #. (ssu.in) ar)uendo that there !as 3ta?in)3 of the entire Propert0, in not e7cludin) fro. the Propert0 the 8,#"".,$ s6uare*.eter portion NPC had previousl0 e7propriated and paid forE '. In holdin) that the a.ount of >ust co.pensation fi7ed b0 the trial court at P#,''8,'1$.$$ !ith interest fro. Septe.ber ,, "%/% until full0 paid, is >ust and fairE 1. In not holdin) that the >ust co.pensation should be fi7ed at P&1.$$ per s6uare .eter onl0 as !hat NPC and Pobre had previousl0 .utuall0 a)reed uponE and ,. In not totall0 settin) aside the appealed Decision of the trial court. "" Procedural Issues NPC, represented b0 the Office of the Solicitor +eneral, insists that at the ti.e that it .oved for the dis.issal of its co.plaint, Pobre had 0et to serve an ans!er or a .otion for su..ar0 >ud).ent on NPC. -hus, NPC as plaintiff had the ri)ht to .ove for the auto.atic dis.issal of its co.plaint. NPC relies on Section ", Rule "/ of the "%,' Rules of Court, the Rules then in effect. NPC ar)ues that the dis.issal of the co.plaint should have carried !ith it the dis.issal of the entire case includin) Pobre<s counterclai..

NPC<s belated attac? on Pobre<s clai. for da.a)es .ust fail. -he trial court<s reservation of Pobre<s ri)ht to recover da.a)es in the sa.e case is alread0 be0ond revie!. -he 8 :anuar0 "%81 Order of the trial court attained finalit0 !hen NPC failed to .ove for its reconsideration !ithin the "1*da0 re)le.entar0 period. NPC opposed the order onl0 on &/ Ma0 "%81 or .ore than four .onths fro. the issuance of the order. =e cannot fault the Court of (ppeals for not considerin) NPC<s ob>ections a)ainst the subsistence of Pobre<s clai. for da.a)es. NPC neither included this issue in its assi)n.ent of errors nor discussed it in its appellant<s brief. NPC also failed to 6uestion the trial court<s 8 :anuar0 "%81 Order in the petition for certiorari "& it had earlier filed !ith the Court of (ppeals. It is onl0 before this Court that NPC no! vi)orousl0 assails the preservation of Pobre<s clai. for da.a)es. Clearl0, NPC<s opposition to the e7istence of Pobre<s clai. for da.a)es is a .ere afterthou)ht. Rules of fair pla0, >ustice and due process dictate that parties cannot raise an issue for the first ti.e on appeal."# =e .ust correct NPC<s clai. that it filed the notice of dis.issal >ust 3shortl03 after it had filed the co.plaint for e7propriation. =hile NPC had inti.ated several ti.es to the trial court its desire to dis.iss the e7propriation case it filed on 1 Septe.ber "%/%, "' it !as onl0 on & :anuar0 "%81 that NPC filed its notice of dis.issal. "1 It too? NPC .ore than five 0ears to actuall0 file the notice of dis.issal. ;ive 0ears is definitel0 not a short period of ti.e. NPC obviousl0 dill0*dallied in filin) its notice of dis.issal !hile NPC .ean!hile burdened Pobre<s propert0 ri)hts. Even a ti.el0 opposition a)ainst Pobre<s clai. for da.a)es !ould not 0ield a favorable rulin) for NPC. It is not Section ", Rule "/ of the "%,' Rules of Court that is applicable to this case but Rule ,/ of the sa.e Rules, as !ell as >urisprudence on e7propriation cases. Rule "/ referred to dis.issal of civil actions in )eneral !hile Rule ,/ specificall0 )overned e.inent do.ain cases. E.inent do.ain is the authorit0 and ri)ht of the state, as soverei)n, to ta?e private propert0 for public use upon observance of due process of la! and pa0.ent of >ust co.pensation. ", -he po!er of e.inent do.ain .a0 be validl0 dele)ated to the local )overn.ents, other public entities and public utilities "/ such as NPC. E7propriation is the procedure for enforcin) the ri)ht of e.inent do.ain. "8 3E.inent Do.ain3 !as the for.er title of Rule ,/ of the "%,' Rules of Court. In the "%%/ Rules of Civil Procedure, !hich too? effect on " :ul0 "%%/, the prescribed .ethod of e7propriation is still found in Rule ,/, but its title is no! 3E7propriation.3 Section ", Rule "/ of the "%,' Rules of Court provided the e7ception to the )eneral rule that the dis.issal of the co.plaint is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. "% ;or as lon) as all of the ele.ents of Section ", Rule "/ !ere present the dis.issal of the co.plaint rested e7clusivel0 on the plaintiff<s !ill. &$ -he defendin) part0 and even the courts !ere po!erless to prevent the dis.issal. &" -he courts could onl0 accept and record the dis.issal.&& ( plain readin) of Section ", Rule "/ of the "%,' Rules of Court .a?es it obvious that this rule !as not intended to supple.ent Rule ,/ of the sa.e Rules. Section ", Rule "/ of the "%,' Rules of Court, provided thatA SEC-ION ". Dismissal by the plaintiff. F (n action .a0 be dis.issed b0 the plaintiff !ithout order of court b0 filin) a notice of dis.issal at an0 ti.e before service of the ans!er or of a .otion for su..ar0 >ud).ent. Cnless other!ise stated in the notice, the dis.issal is !ithout pre>udice, e7cept that a notice operates as an ad>udication upon the .erits !hen filed b0 a plaintiff !ho has once dis.issed in a co.petent court an action based on or includin) the sa.e clai.. ( class suit shall not be dis.issed or co.pro.ised !ithout approval of the court. =hile Section ", Rule "/ spo?e of the 3service of ans!er or su..ar0 >ud).ent,3 the Rules then did not re6uire the filin) of an ans!er or su..ar0 >ud).ent in e.inent do.ain cases. &# In lieu of an ans!er, Section # of Rule ,/ re6uired the defendant to file a sin)le .otion to dis.iss !here he should present all of his ob>ections and defenses to the ta?in) of his propert0 for the purpose specified in the co.plaint. &' In short, in e7propriation cases under Section # of Rule ,/, the .otion to dis.iss too? the place of the ans!er. -he records sho! that Pobre had alread0 filed and served on NPC his 3.otion to dis.issGans!er3 &1 even before NPC filed its o!n .otion to dis.iss. NPC filed its notice of dis.issal of the co.plaint on & :anuar0 "%81. 9o!ever, as earl0 as "$ Dece.ber "%8', Pobre had alread0 filed !ith the trial court and served on NPC his 3.otion to dis.issGans!er.3 ( certain Divina Cerela received Pobre<s pleadin) on behalf of NPC.&, Cnfortunatel0 for NPC, even Section ", Rule "/ of the "%,' Rules of Court could not save its cause.

NPC is in no position to invo?e Section ", Rule "/ of the "%,' Rules of Court. ( plaintiff loses his ri)ht under this rule to .ove for the i..ediate dis.issal of the co.plaint once the defendant had served on the plaintiff the ans!er or a .otion for su..ar0 >ud).ent before the plaintiff could file his notice of dis.issal of the co.plaint.&/ Pobre<s 3.otion to dis.issGans!er,3 filed and served !a0 ahead of NPC<s .otion to dis.iss, ta?es the case out of Section ", Rule "/ assu.in) the sa.e applies. In e7propriation cases, there is no such thin) as the plaintiff<s .atter of ri)ht to dis.iss the co.plaint precisel0 because the lando!ner .a0 have alread0 suffered da.a)es at the start of the ta?in). -he plaintiff<s ri)ht in e7propriation cases to dis.iss the co.plaint has al!a0s been sub>ect to court approval and to certain conditions.&8 -he e7ceptional ri)ht that Section ", Rule "/ of the "%,' Rules of Court conferred on the plaintiff .ust be understood to have applied onl0 to other civil actions. -he "%%/ Rules of Civil Procedure abro)ated this e7ceptional ri)ht.&% -he po!er of e.inent do.ain is sub>ect to li.itations. ( lando!ner cannot be deprived of his ri)ht over his land until e7propriation proceedin)s are instituted in court. #$ -he court .ust then see to it that the ta?in) is for public use, there is pa0.ent of >ust co.pensation and there is due process of la!. #" If the propriet0 of the ta?in) of private propert0 throu)h e.inent do.ain is sub>ect to >udicial scrutin0, the dis.issal of the co.plaint .ust also pass >udicial in6uir0 because private ri)hts .a0 have suffered in the .eanti.e. -he dis.issal, !ithdra!al or abandon.ent of the e7propriation case cannot be .ade arbitraril0. If it appears to the court that the e7propriation is not for so.e public use, #& then it beco.es the dut0 of the court to dis.iss the action.## 9o!ever, !hen the defendant clai.s that his land suffered da.a)e because of the e7propriation, the dis.issal of the action should not foreclose the defendant<s ri)ht to have his da.a)es ascertained either in the sa.e case or in a separate action. #' -hus, NPC<s theor0 that the dis.issal of its co.plaint carried !ith it the dis.issal of Pobre<s clai. for da.a)es is baseless. -here is nothin) in Rule ,/ of the "%,' Rules of Court that provided for the dis.issal of the defendant<s clai. for da.a)es, upon the dis.issal of the e7propriation case. Case la! holds that in the event of dis.issal of the e7propriation case, the clai. for da.a)es .a0 be .ade either in a separate or in the sa.e action, for all da.a)es occasioned b0 the institution of the e7propriation case. #1 -he dis.issal of the co.plaint can be .ade under certain conditions, such as the reservation of the defendant<s ri)ht to recover da.a)es either in the sa.e or in another action. #, -he trial court in this case reserved Pobre<s ri)ht to prove his clai. in the sa.e case, a reservation that has beco.e final due to NPC<s o!n fault. Factual Findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts Bind the Court -he trial and appellate courts held that even before the first e7propriation case, Pobre had alread0 established his Propert0 as a resort*subdivision. NPC had !rou)ht so .uch da.a)e to the Propert0 that NPC had .ade the Propert0 uninhabitable as a resort*subdivision. NPC<s facilities such as stea. !ells, na) !ells, po!er plants, po!er lines, and canals had he..ed in Pobre<s Propert0. NPC<s operations of its )eother.al pro>ect also posed a ris? to lives and properties. =e uphold the factual findin)s of the trial and appellate courts. Huestions of facts are be0ond the pale of Rule '1 of the Rules of Court as a petition for revie! .a0 onl0 raise 6uestions of la!. #/ Moreover, factual findin)s of the trial court, particularl0 !hen affir.ed b0 the Court of (ppeals, are )enerall0 bindin) on this Court. #8 =e thus find no reason to set aside the t!o courts< factual findin)s. NPC points out that it did not ta?e Pobre<s ,8,%,% s6uare*.eter Propert0. NPC ar)ues that assu.in) that it is liable for da.a)es, the 8,#"".,$ s6uare*.eter portion that it had successfull0 e7propriated and full0 paid for should have been e7cluded fro. the ,8,%,% s6uare*.eter Propert0 that Pobre clai.s NPC had da.a)ed. =e are not persuaded. In its #$ October "%8/ Order den0in) NPC<s .otion for reconsideration, the trial court pointed out that the Propert0 ori)inall0 had a total area of "'",#$$ s6uare .eters. #% Pobre converted the Propert0 into a resort* subdivision and sold lots to the public. =hat re.ained of the lots are the ,8,%,% s6uare .eters of land. '$ Pobre no lon)er clai.ed da.a)es for the other lots that he had before the e7propriation. Pobre identified in court the lots for.in) the ,8,%,% s6uare*.eter Propert0. NPC had the opportunit0 to ob>ect to the identification of the lots.'" NPC, ho!ever, failed to do so. -hus, !e do not disturb the trial and appellate courts< findin) on the total land area NPC had da.a)ed.

NPC must Pay Just Compensation for the Entire Property Ordinaril0, the dis.issal of the e7propriation case restores possession of the e7propriated land to the lando!ner.'&9o!ever, !hen possession of the land cannot be turned over to the lando!ner because it is neither convenient nor feasible an0.ore to do so, the onl0 re.ed0 available to the a))rieved lando!ner is to de.and pa0.ent of >ust co.pensation. '# In this case, !e a)ree !ith the trial and appellate courts that it is no lon)er possible and practical to restore possession of the Propert0 to Pobre. -he Propert0 is no lon)er habitable as a resort*subdivision. -he Propert0 is !orthless to Pobre and is no! useful onl0 to NPC. Pobre has co.pletel0 lost the Propert0 as if NPC had ph0sicall0 ta?en over the entire ,8,%,% s6uare*.eter Propert0. In United tates v! Caus"y,'' the C.S. Supre.e Court ruled that !hen private propert0 is rendered uninhabitable b0 an entit0 !ith the po!er to e7ercise e.inent do.ain, the ta?in) is dee.ed co.plete. Such ta?in) is thus co.pensable. In this >urisdiction, the Court has ruled that if the )overn.ent ta?es propert0 !ithout e7propriation and devotes the propert0 to public use, after .an0 0ears the propert0 o!ner .a0 de.and pa0.ent of >ust co.pensation.'1 -his principle is in accord !ith the constitutional .andate that private propert0 shall not be ta?en for public use !ithout >ust co.pensation. ', In the recent case of National #ousing Authority v! #eirs of Isidro $uivelondo ,'/ the Court co.pelled the National 9ousin) (uthorit0 23N9(34 to pa0 >ust co.pensation to the lando!ners even after the N9( had alread0 abandoned the e7propriation case. -he Court pointed out that a )overn.ent a)enc0 could not initiate e7propriation proceedin)s, sei5e a person<s propert0, and then >ust decide not to proceed !ith the e7propriation. Such a co.plete turn*around is arbitrar0 and capricious and !as conde.ned b0 the Court in the stron)est possible ter.s. N9( !as held liable to the lando!ners for the pre>udice that the0 had suffered. In this case, NPC appropriated Pobre<s Propert0 !ithout resort to e7propriation proceedin)s. NPC dis.issed its o!n co.plaint for the second e7propriation. (t no point did NPC institute e7propriation proceedin)s for the lots outside the 1,11' s6uare*.eter portion sub>ect of the second e7propriation. -he onl0 issues that the trial court had to settle !ere the a.ount of >ust co.pensation and da.a)es that NPC had to pa0 Pobre. -his case ceased to be an action for e7propriation !hen NPC dis.issed its co.plaint for e7propriation. Since this case has been reduced to a si.ple case of recover0 of da.a)es, the provisions of the Rules of Court on the ascertain.ent of the >ust co.pensation to be paid !ere no lon)er applicable. ( trial before co..issioners, for instance, !as dispensable. =e have held that the usual procedure in the deter.ination of >ust co.pensation is !aived !hen the )overn.ent itself initiall0 violates procedural re6uire.ents. '8 NPC<s ta?in) of Pobre<s propert0 !ithout filin) the appropriate e7propriation proceedin)s and pa0in) hi. >ust co.pensation is a trans)ression of procedural due process. ;ro. the be)innin), NPC should have initiated e7propriation proceedin)s for Pobre<s entire ,8,%,% s6uare* .eter Propert0. NPC did not. Instead, NPC e.bar?ed on a piece.eal e7propriation of the Propert0. Even as the second e7propriation case !as still pendin), NPC !as !ell a!are of the da.a)e that it had unleashed on the entire Propert0. NPC, ho!ever, re.ained i.pervious to Pobre<s repeated de.ands for NPC to abate the da.a)e that it had !rou)ht on his Propert0. NPC .oved for the dis.issal of the co.plaint for the second e7propriation on the )round that it had found an alternative site and there !as stiff opposition fro. Pobre. '% NPC abandoned the second e7propriation case five 0ears after it had alread0 deprived the Propert0 virtuall0 of all its value. NPC has de.onstrated its utter disre)ard for Pobre<s propert0 ri)hts. -hus, it !ould no! be futile to co.pel NPC to institute e7propriation proceedin)s to deter.ine the >ust co.pensation for Pobre<s ,8,%,% s6uare*.eter Propert0. Pobre .ust be spared an0 further dela0 in his pursuit to receive >ust co.pensation fro. NPC. :ust co.pensation is the fair and full e6uivalent of the loss. 1$ -he trial and appellate courts endeavored to .eet this standard. -he P1$ per s6uare .eter valuation of the ,8,%,% s6uare*.eter Propert0 is reasonable considerin) that the Propert0 !as alread0 an established resort*subdivision. NPC has itself to bla.e for not

contestin) the valuation before the trial court. ased on the P1$ per s6uare .eter valuation, the total a.ount of >ust co.pensation that NPC .ust pa0 Pobre is P#,''8,'1$. -he lando!ner is entitled to le)al interest on the price of the land fro. the ti.e of the ta?in) up to the ti.e of full pa0.ent b0 the )overn.ent. 1" In accord !ith >urisprudence, !e fi7 the le)al interest at si7 per cent 2,@4 per annu..1& -he le)al interest should accrue fro. , Septe.ber "%/%, the date !hen the trial court issued the !rit of possession to NPC, up to the ti.e that NPC full0 pa0s Pobre. 1# NPC<s abuse of its e.inent do.ain authorit0 is appallin). 9o!ever, !e cannot a!ard .oral da.a)es because Pobre did not assert his ri)ht to it. 1' =e also cannot a!ard attorne0<s fees in Pobre<s favor since he did not appeal fro. the decision of the Court of (ppeals den0in) recover0 of attorne0<s fees. 11 Nonetheless, !e find it proper to a!ard P1$,$$$ in te.perate da.a)es to Pobre. -he court .a0 a!ard te.perate or .oderate da.a)es, !hich are .ore than no.inal but less than co.pensator0 da.a)es, if the court finds that a part0 has suffered so.e pecuniar0 loss but its a.ount cannot be proved !ith certaint0 fro. the nature of the case. 1, (s the trial and appellate courts noted, Pobre<s resort*subdivision !as no lon)er >ust a drea. because Pobre had alread0 established the resort*subdivision and the prospect for it !as initiall0 encoura)in). -hat is, until NPC per.anentl0 da.a)ed Pobre<s Propert0. NPC did not >ust destro0 the propert0. NPC dashed Pobre<s hope of seein) his Propert0 achieve its full potential as a resort*subdivision. -he lesson in this case .ust not be lost on entities !ith e.inent do.ain authorit0. Such entities cannot trifle !ith a citi5en<s propert0 ri)hts. -he po!er of e.inent do.ain is an e7traordinar0 po!er the0 .ust !ield !ith circu.spection and ut.ost re)ard for procedural re6uire.ents. -hus, !e hold NPC liable for e7e.plar0 da.a)es of P"$$,$$$. E7e.plar0 da.a)es or corrective da.a)es are i.posed, b0 !a0 of e7a.ple or correction for the public )ood, in addition to the .oral, te.perate, li6uidated or co.pensator0 da.a)es. 1/ W-EREFORE, !e DEND the petition for lac? of .erit. -he appealed Decision of the Court of (ppeals dated #$ March "%%& in C(*+.R. CV No. ",%#$ is (;;IRMED !ith MODI;IC(-ION. National Po!er Corporation is ordered to pa0 (ntonino Pobre P#,''8,'1$ as >ust co.pensation for the ,8,%,% s6uare*.eter Propert0 at P1$ per s6uare .eter. National Po!er Corporation is directed to pa0 le)al interest at ,@ per annum on the a.ount ad>ud)ed fro. , Septe.ber "%/% until full0 paid. Cpon National Po!er Corporation<s pa0.ent of the full a.ount, (ntonino Pobre is ordered to e7ecute a Deed of Conve0ance of the Propert0 in National Po!er Corporation<s favor. National Po!er Corporation is further ordered to pa0 te.perate and e7e.plar0 da.a)es of P1$,$$$ and P"$$,$$$, respectivel0. No costs. SO OR#ERE#. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, and !"una, JJ., concur.

.)sa/a

R&*) ) g Co0,a / &t. a( 1s. Ca0us &t. a(

G.R. No. L213840 #&'&05&+ 6, 1717 St+&&t, 8. FACTS$ Cpon the direction of the +overnor*+eneral, the (ttorne0*+eneral filed a co.plaint !ith the C;I 2Ri5al4 in the na.e of the +overn.ent of the Philippines for the conde.nation of a certain tract of land in Parana6ue for .ilitar0 and aviation purposes. -he petitioners herein are a.on) the defendants na.ed. Bi?e!ise, it !as pra0ed that the court !ill )ive the +overn.ent the possession of the land to be e7propriated after the necessar0 deposit 2provisional4 of P,$$, $$$.$$ as the total value of the propert0. -hrou)h the order of the public respondent, :ud)e Ca.us, the pra0er !as )ranted. Durin) the pendenc0 of the proceedin)s, the petitioners raised a de.urrer 6uestionin) the validit0 of the proceedin)s on the )round that there is no la! authori5in) the e7ercise of the po!er of e.inent do.ain. Bi?e!ise, the0 .oved for the revocation of the order on the sa.e )round stated and !ith additional alle)ation that the deposit had been .ade !ithout authorit0 of la! since the .one0 !as ta?en fro. the une7pended balance of the funds appropriated b0 previous statutes for the use of the Militia Co..ission and the authorit0 for the e7ercise of the po!er of e.inent do.ain could not be found in those statutes. -he de.urrer and .otion !ere overruled and denied respectivel0 b0 Ca.us. -his pro.pted the petitioners to file this instant petition to stop the proceedin)s in the C;I.

ISSUEA Can the Philippine +overn.ent initiate e7propriation proceedin)s in the absence of a statute authori5in) the e7ercise of the po!er of e.inent do.ainI RULINGA Des, it can. -he Philippine +overn.ent has the )eneral authorit0 to e7ercise the po!er of e.inent do.ain as e7pressl0 conferred b0 Section ,# of the Philippine ill 2(ct of Con)ress of :ul0 ", "%$&4. It sa0s that the Philippine +overn.ent is authori5ed JKLto ac6uire, receive, hold, .aintain, and conve0 title to real and personal propert0, and .a0 ac6uire real estate for public uses b0 the e7ercise of the ri)ht to e.inent do.ain.JK -he sa.e is sub>ect to the li.itation of due process of la!. In consonance !ith this, Section ,' of the (d.inistrative Code of the Philippine Islands 2(ct No. &/""4 e7pressl0 confers on the +overn.ent +eneral the po!er JKLto deter.ine !hen it is necessar0 or advanta)eous to e7ercise the ri)ht of e.inent do.ain in behalf of the +overn.ent of the Philippine IslandE and to direct the (ttorne0*+eneral, !here such at is dee.ed advisable, to cause the conde.nation proceedin)s to be be)un in the court havin) proper >urisdiction.JK -here is no 6uestion as to the +overnor +eneralJKMs authorit0 to e7ercise this po!er. 9o!ever, this authorit0 is not absolute. It is sub>ect to t!o li.itations, na.el0, that the ta?in) shall be for public purpose and there .ust be >ust co.pensation. (pparentl0, the reason behind the ta?in) of the sub>ect land !as for .ilitar0 and aviation purposes. -his considered a public purpose )iven the i.portance of the .ilitar0 and aviation in the operation of the State. (s to the second re6uire.ent, it .ust be re.e.bered that at that ti.e there !as no la! re6uirin) that co.pensation shall actuall0 be paid prior to the >ud).ent of conde.nation. -he deposit !as .ade, despite the absence of said la!, to afford absolute assurance that no piece of land can be finall0 and irrevocabl0 ta?en fro. an un!illin) o!ner until co.pensation is paid. -his is in confor.it0 !ith the >ust co.pensation re6uire.ent. +iven these reasons, the proceedin)s !ere .ade in accordance !ith la!. #ISPOSITION Petition is denied. Proceedin)s of the lo!er court !ere in all respects re)ular and !ithin the >urisdiction of the court. NOTE -he Supre.e Court did not elaborate the reason in upholdin) the le)alit0 of the transfer funds used for the deposit. It onl0 said that JKLthe Insular (uditor !as actin) !ithin his authorit0 !hen he let this .one0 out of the Insular -reasur0.