1. Guidelines for expropriation proceedings (Sec.

4 of RA 8974)
a. File complaint and notify defendant
b. Immediately pay the owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of 100%
of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR and
the value of the improvements and/or structures
2. Just compensation – full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator. The measure is not the taker’s gain, but the owner’s loss. [Hacienda Luisita, Inc. v.
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (2012), 670 SCRA 392]
3. It is well-settled that just compensation means the equivalent for the value of the property at
the time of its taking. Anything beyond that is more, and anything short of that is less, than just
compensation. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained, which is the measure of
the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating entity. [J.M. Tuason and Co.
Inc. v. LTA (1970), 31 SCRA 413]
4. In American Jurisprudence, Vol. 26, 2nd edition, Section 157, on the subject of "Eminent
Domain, we read the definition of "taking" (in eminent domain) as follows: "'Taking' under the
power of eminent domain may be defined generally as entering upon private property for more
than a momentary period, and, under the warrant or color of legal authority, devoting it to a
public use, or otherwise informally appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way as
substantially to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof."
5. In eminent domain or expropriation proceedings, the general rule is that the just compensation
to which the owner of condemned property is entitled to is the market value. Market value is
that sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but
not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received therefor. The
aforementioned rule, however, is modified where only a part of a certain property is
expropriated. In such a case the owner is not restricted to compensation for the portion actually
taken. In addition to the market value of the portion taken, he is also entitled to recover for the
consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property. At the same time, from the
total compensation must be deducted the value of the consequential benefits. [NAPOCOR v.
Chiong (2003), G.R. No. 152436]
6. No actual taking of the remaining portion of the real property is necessary to grant
consequential damages. If as a result of the expropriation made by petitioner, the remaining lot
(i.e., the 297-square meter lot) of private respondent suffers from an impairment or decrease in
value, consequential damages may be awarded to private respondent. On the other hand, if the
expropriation results to benefits to the remaining lot of private respondent, these consequential
benefits may be deducted from the awarded consequential damages, if any, or from the market
value of the expropriated property. We held in B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals that:
To determine just compensation, the trial court should first ascertain the market value of the
property, to which should be added the consequential damages after deducting therefrom the
consequential benefits which may arise from the expropriation. If the consequential benefits
exceed the consequential damages, these items should be disregarded altogether as the basic
value of the property should be paid in every case. [Republic v. CA (2009), 596 SCRA 57]
7. An award of consequential damages for property not taken is not tantamount to unjust
enrichment of the property owner. There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a
benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against
the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Article 22 of the Civil Code
provides that [e]very person who through an act of performance by another, or any other
means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just
or legal ground, shall return the same to him. The principle of unjust enrichment under Article
22 requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification,
and (2) that such benefit is derived at anothers expense or damage. There is no unjust
enrichment when the person who will benefit has a valid claim to such benefit.
As stated, consequential damages are awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining
property of the owner suffers from an impairment or decrease in value. Thus, there is a valid
basis for the grant of consequential damages to the property owner, and no unjust enrichment
can result therefrom. [Republic v. CA (2009), 596 SCRA 57]
8. “We recognize that the owner’s loss is not only his property but also its income-generating
potential. Thus, when property is taken, full compensation of its value must immediately be paid
to achieve a fair exchange for the property and the potential income lost. [Secretary of DPWH v.
Tecson (2015), 756 SCRA 389]
9. A taking occurs when the government encroaches upon or occupies private land for its own
proposed use. Even a minimal permanent physical occupation of real property requires
compensation under the takings clause. For instance, governmental regulation of property can
sometimes constitute a taking[i].
Generally, takings claims arise two ways:
Physical taking;
Regulatory taking.
A physical taking occurs when the government encroaches upon private land for its own
proposed use. A regulatory taking can arise although the government actions do not encroach
upon or occupy the property but still affect and limit its use to such an extent that a taking
occurs. Regulatory takings are based on the principle that while property may be regulated to a
certain extent, if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking[ii].
- See more at: http://eminentdomain.uslegal.com/what-constitutes-a-
taking/#sthash.EtDhXLl0.dpuf
10. SC upheld the award of consequential damages in an expropriation case over properties not
actually taken but are rendered “unusable and uninhabitable” reasoning as follows: “We are,
however, unable to sustain the Republic’s argument that it is not liable to pay consequential
damages if in enforcing the legal easement on Andaya’s property, the remaining area would be
rendered unusable and uninhabitable. Taking, in the exercise of the power of eminent domain,
occurs not only when the government actually deprives or dispossesses the property owner of
his property or of its ordinary use, but also when there is a practical destruction or material
impairment of the value of his property. Using this standard, there was undoubtedly a taking of
the remaining area of Andaya’s property. True, no burden was imposed thereon and Andaya still
retained title and possession of the property. But, as correctly observed by the Board and
 affirmed by the courts a quo, the nature and the effect of the floodwalls would deprive Andaya
of the normal use of the remaining areas. It would prevent ingress and egress to the property
and turn it into a catch basin for the floodwaters coming from the Agusan River“. [Republic v.
Andaya (2007), 524 SCRA 671]
11. The exercise of the power of eminent domain does not always result in the taking or
appropriation of title to the expropriated property; it may only result in the imposition of a
burden upon the owner of the condemned property, without loss of title or possession.
[NAPOCOR v. Gutierrez (1991), 193 SCRA 1]
12. No actual taking of the building is necessary to grant consequential damages. Consequential
damages are awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining property of the owner
suffers from impairment or decrease in value. [Republic v. BPI (2013) 705 SCRA 650]