125. Garcia v.

CA
TITLE JANE L. GARCIA, MAYORICO P. SANDICO, BELEN R. GARCIA and
DANILO DIOKNO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Tenth
Division) and NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, respondents.

GR # L-47553

DATE January 31, 1981

PONENTE FERNANDEZ, J.

NATURE/ Elements of taking;

KEYWORDS

FACTS National Power Corporation occupied portions of two lots for construction of
steel towers and lies. The lots were designated as Block 19 in the sketch
plan, and NPC had not paid anything for the portion occupied, either as
rental or purchase price.

The two lots were surveyed for conversion into a subdivision for residential
purposes. Block 19, as was occupied by the NPC, as not subdivided due to
the steel towers and power lines of the NPC, which made it dangerous for
residential purposes.

The NPC instituted an action for expropriation of a ‘right-of-way easement’

over a portion of the two lots. The entire area to be expropriated was
adjacent to Block 19. The area was to be used for construction and
maintenance of the power lines that were made in Block 19. They offered
to pay them easement fees for such.

ISSUE(S) Whether or not Block 19 was subjected to expropriation;

RULING(S) To constitute "taking for purposes of eminent domain the ff: circumstances
must concur:

1) the expropriator must enter upon the private property;

2) the entrance must not be for a momentary period, that is, the entrance
must be permanent;
3) the entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority;
4) the property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected; and
5) the utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the
owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property;

In respondent’s answer, it was alleged that the construction of the lines

were with permission of petitioner’s father. The title of the document was
“PERMISSION TO OCCUPY LAND” which grants privilege to respondent,
subject to the terms and conditions in the document.

As respondent’s entry was gained through permission, there was no

intention to acquire ownership by voluntary purchase nor eminent domain.
Respondent had not even completed negotiation, yet it still constructed
another line without defendant’s permission nor court authorization. These
prove that respondent did not seek to expropriate nor even have to
intention to do so on Block 19.

Consequently, since the areas covered by Block 19 were never entered into
or possessed for purposes of eminent domain, nor did they become the
subject of an action for eminent domain, neither the date of entry nor the
filing of the action by private respondent for expropriation of a "right-of-
way" easement on December 8, 1969 could be reckoned with as the basis
for the determination of just compensation.

In the peculiar circumstances of the case at bar, there being no taking of

the property in question for purposes of eminent domain nor condemnation
proceedings instituted over the same to speak of, the market value should
be fixed at the time the trial court made the order of expropriation.