C0E: NAPOCOR v San Pedro (2006)

NAPOCOR wanted to build facilities in Bulacan, which would pass through the property of the San
Pedros. The San Pedro property was partly residential and partly agricultural. NAPOCOR executed an
easement of right of way with the San Pedro to achieve its purpose. The agreed upon payment by the
parties was 600 pesos/sq. meter, but later on, NAPOCOR changed its offer to 230 pesos/sq. meter for
the residential portion and 89 pesos/sq. meter for the agricultural pursuant to a Resolution issued by
the NAPOCOR Board of Directors.

Maria San Pedro wanted NAPOCOR to honor their original agreement, so she brought the case to the
court. The RTC asked various experts to determine the just compensation, and their estimates are closer
to the original agreed upon payment. NAPOCOR, however, only wanted to pay easement fees since only
a portion of the San Pedro property was used. The San Pedros, on the other hand, said that it did not
matter since they can no longer enjoy the use of the property due to the buzzing sounds and their fear
that something might go wrong with the installed equipment in their property. The RTC sided with the
San Pedros, and the CA affirmed the lower court’s decision

Issue: WON NAPOCOR should only pay easement fees

Held: NO. The San Pedros should be given a larger compensation (for just compensation, and not mere
easement) even if only a portion of the property was used by NAPOCOR. This is because the San Pedros
can no longer enjoy their property rights due to the equipment installed. Expropriation is not limited to
the acquisition of real property. Easement resulting in a restriction or limitation on property rights is also
considered as expropriation.

Dispositive: NAPOCOR’s appeal was DENIED; CA’s ruling was AFFIRMED

C1A: Republic v Lim (2005)

In 1938, a parcel of land in Cebu belonging to the Danzons was expropriated for the construction of a
military reservation for the Philippine Army. The payment for just compensation, however, was not
given right away. In fact, it took several decades, several court actions, and several heirs of the original
owners and still the government would not honor its agreement with the Danzons.

Later on, the ownership of the said land was transferred to Vicente Lim due to the failure of the Danzon
heirs to pay their loan to the former. Lim, then, asked the court to name him the exclusive owner of the
property. The RTC sided with him, and the CA sustained the lower court’s decision, saying that what the
Republic did was contrary to the rules of fair play because the concept of just compensation embraces
not only the correct determination of amount to be paid to the owners, but also the payment within a
reasonable time from its taking.

Undaunted, the Republic brought the case to the SC, insisting that the ownership of the property was
already transferred to them upon their agreement with the original owners.

Issue: WON the Republic retained its ownership of the land despite its failure to pay the just
compensation

Held: NO. Just compensation, the correct amount, must be given to the owners of the land within a
reasonable time. The right to enter on and use the property is complete as soon as the property is
actually appropriated under the authority of law for a public use, but the title(ownership) does not pass
from the owner without his consent, until just compensation has been made to him.

The rule made by SC: the general rule is that non-payment of just compensation (in an expropriation
proceedings) does not entitle the private landowners to recover possession of the expropriated lots.
However, if the government failed to pay just compensation within five (5) years from the finality of the
judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners shall have the right to recover possession of the
property.

Dispositive: CA’s decision was affirmed.

C1B: MCIAA v CA (2000)

Lot 941, owned by Virginia Chiongbian, was expropriated for the expansion of the Lahug International
Airport. Just compensation was given to Chiongbian for the taking of the said land.

The ownership of the land was later transferred to Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority for the
creation of a new airport which would utilize the assets of the now-defunct Lahug Airport. The land,
however, would remain unused by the MCIAA.

Private respondent wanted to recover her expropriated property premised on the fact that the other
property owners in the area were able to recover their lands. The other property owners, however, had
in their contracts a right-to-recover clause. Chiongbian’s contract with the government did not have the
same term. She only relied on the words of her lawyer who told her that MCIAA agreed to return the
said land when it is no longer being used by the government despite the lack of written contract
between her and the Republic.

The RTC ruled in favor of Chiongbian, ordering MCIAA to return the ownership of the property to
Chiongbian. RTC’s decision was then affirmed by the CA.

Issue: WON CA erred in affirming RTC’s decision to allow Chiongbian to recover her property

Held: YES. Chiongbian did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claim that there was an
agreement between her and the government that the ownership of the land will return to her if it is no
longer being used by the latter.

There was no written agreement to such arrangement unlike in the contracts of the other landowners in
the area. She only relied on the words of her lawyer, who was not even presented as a witness.

As a rule, expropriated property may be recovered when it is no longer being used, but only when there
is an express (written) agreement between the parties to such term. Absent of such agreement, the
ownership of the property will not automatically revert to its original owner even if the purpose for
which the land was expropriated ceases to exist.

Dispositive: CA’s decision was reversed and set aside.