Case Digest: ROMONAFE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, et al. 513 SCRA 424 (2007)

ROMONAFE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, et al. 513 SCRA 424 (2007)

National Power Corporation (NPC), a government owned and controlled corporation filed a complaint for expropriation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Romonafe Corporation (Romonafe) and Vine Development Corporation (Vine). The complaint covered 48, 103.12 square meters of property to Romonafe and 96,963.38 square meters of property belonging to Vine. RTC issued a writ of possession in favor of NPC and the trial court designated commissioners to determine the just compensation for the properties. The trial court ordered the fair market value of the property at 3,500.00 per square meter for Romonafe and Vine. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), questioned the agreement to pay Romonafe on the basis of the 1997 valuation of its property at 3,500.00 per square meter as ―contrary to decisional law. 
In lieu thereof, it further decreed by the Court that the fair market value of the fair market value of the land be fixed at 1,500.00 per square meter. Thus, this present petition filed by Romonafe.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the agreement between NPC and Romonafe is valid considering the compensation given to Romonafe by NPC

HELD: 

Just compensation is to be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint whichever comes first. In the case at bar, just compensation should be determined as of July 12, 1995 when the expropriation case was filed before the trial court.
The Provincial Appraisal Committee has established the fair market value on the subject parcels of land a value which is not too high on the part of the government and not too low on the part of property owners.
The Court notes that the appellate court failed to pass on NPC‘s appeal with respect to the property of Vine. And, as NPV and even Romonafe manifest, the appellate court failed to consider the Partial Compromise Agreement between NPC and Vine in its assailed Decision. A remand of the case to the appellate court is thus in order.