Case Digest: NAPOCOR vs. Tarcelo, G.R. No. 198139. September 8, 2014

Easement

CASE TITLE: NAPOCOR vs. Tarcelo

GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 198139. September 8, 2014.

PONENTE: Del Castillo, J.

CASE WITH THE SC: Petition for Review on Certiorari

PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS:

  1. RTC - Expropriation

  2. CA - Appeal

  3. RTC - Urgent Omnibus Motion to quash the writ and garnishment

  4. CA - Petition for Certiorari

FACTS:

  • Respondents Felicisimo Tarcelo and the heirs of Comia Santos owned two lots in Brgy. Tabangao-Ambulong, Batangas City, measuring 4,404 and 2,611 square meters. 

  • In 2000, the National Power Corporation (NPC) filed Civil Case No. 5785 to expropriate 1,595.91 square meters of these lots for their 1,200 MW Ilijan Natural Gas Pipeline Project. 

  • RTC-Batangas: 

    • 2002 — Issued an order allowing NPC to take possession of the lots and appointed commissioners to determine just compensation. 

    • 2005 — Decided that the compensation was P1,000.00 per square meter.

  • CA: Modified the compensation to P797.50 per square meter.

    • This decision became final.

    • Respondents moved for execution. 

  • RTC: Granted the execution.

    • A Writ of Execution and a Notice of Garnishment were served to NPC’s bank for P5,594,462.50, representing the entire 7,015 square meters.

  • NPC filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion to quash the writ and garnishment, arguing that the compensation was for only 1,595.91 square meters. T

  • RTC: Denied this motion, stating that just compensation was for the entire properties due to the nature of the underground pipeline project. 

    • NPC’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied as it lacked a notice of hearing, rendering the RTC’s order final.

    • NPC then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA.

  • CA: Denied the petition, affirming the RTC’s orders. 

    • The CA held that the RTC’s decision indicated compensation for the entire properties and not just the affected portions.

ISSUE:


Whether. YES


ARGUMENTS/LEGAL BASES  

PETITIONER

RESPONDENTS

  • The issue of whether it should be made to pay for the whole 7,015-square meter area was not at all raised.

  • -

PREVAILING PARTY: NAPOCOR

DECISION/DOCTRINE:


The Court grants the Petition.


The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the State or by its authorized agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights. It is one of the harshest proceedings known to the law. x x x The authority to condemn is to be strictly construed in favor of the owner and against the condemnor. When the power is granted, the extent to which it may be exercised is limited to the express terms or clear implication of the statute in which the grant is contained. 


Corollarily, it has been held that trial courts should exercise care and circumspection in the resolution of just compensation cases, considering that they involve the expenditure of public funds. 


The above principles were somehow lost on both the trial and appellate courts.


The Commissioners’ Reports in Civil Case No. 5785 indicate that only the affected areas were intended to be acquired and compensated. Thus, Commissioner Emelinda C. Atienza’s Report contains the following recommendation:


IV. Recommendation


Finding x x x that the valuation established herein was reasonable and fair, the undersigned recommend [sic] that the amount of Php1,120.00 per square meter be adopted to compensate the affected areas on the properties involve [sic] in the above subject case. 


On the other hand, Commissioners Alberto M. Nuique and Eladio R. Taupa’s respective Reports uniformly state:


III. RECOMMENDATIONS


It is hereby recommended that only easement fee be made as the payment on the affected portion of the above-mentioned parcel of agricultural land which is 10% of the fair market value pursuant to Republic Act 6395 as amended x x x 


The trial court itself particularly decreed in its November 7, 2005 Decision that only the affected portions of respondents’ properties were to be acquired and compensated for. In the decretal portion of its Decision, it thus held as follows:


WHEREFORE, plaintiff National Power Corporation is ordered to pay the defendants the amount of P1,000.00 per square meter.


Upon payment of just compensation to the defendants, subject to the deductions of the sums due the Government for unpaid real estate taxes and other imposts, the plaintiff shall have a lawful right to enter, take possession and acquire easement of right-of-way over the portions of the properties together with the improvements sought to be expropriated for the purpose stated, free from any and all liens and encumbrances 


The CA therefore patently erred in declaring in its assailed Decision that there is nothing in the November 7, 2005 Decision of the Batangas City RTC to indicate that NPC was being ordered to pay just compensation only for the 1,595.91-square meter portion of respondents’ properties. On the contrary, the evidence is quite clear that NPC has been made liable precisely to such extent only, and not more.


The Court likewise observes that contrary to the CA’s appreciation, the June 26, 2007 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 86712 did not particularly declare that NPC should pay for the entire area of respondents’ properties. It merely stated that respondents should be compensated for the full and fair market value of their property and not merely paid a 10% easement fee therefor; it did not resolve the issue of whether NPC should pay just compensation for the entire area of 7,015 square meters. It simply said that NPC should pay for the full per-square meter value of the affected portions, and not just a fraction thereof (or 10%). There could be no other interpretation of the June 26, 2007 pronouncement in CA-G.R. CV No. 86712 when the CA stated therein that –


At bar, it cannot be gainsaid that the construction of underground pipeline is a simple case of mere passage of gas pipeline. It will surely cause damage and prejudice to the agricultural potentials of appellees’ property. Deep excavation will have to be done whereby plants and trees will be uprooted. A possible leakage could certainly do harm and adversely restrict the agricultural and economic activity of the land. This is not to mention that it will create an environmental health hazard dangerous to the occupant’s life and limb.


Hence, defendants-appellees are entitled for (sic) just compensation to (sic) the full market value of their property not just ten percent (10%) of it.


x x x x


Taking all the consideration [sic] of the subject property, Commissioners Taupa and Nuique placed the value of the property at P475.00 per square meter based on the Land Bank valuation and Cuervo Appraisers, Inc. and the Provincial/City Appraisal Committees of Batangas, Laguna and Lipa City, while Commissioner Atienza valued the property at P1,120 per square meter, based on the average value per findings of the Committee composed of the City Assessor, City Treasurer, City Engineer under Resolution No. 9-99 dated June 18, 1999 that the subject property will cost P1,000.00 to P1,300.00 per square meter, and the opinion value of her Team’s survey and Report which revealed that the prevailing price of agricultural land in Tabangao-Ambulong, Batangas City is NINE HUNDRED THIRTY PESOS (P930.00) per square meter. 


NPC is thus correct in its observation that the issue of whether it should be made to pay for the whole 7,015-square meter area was not at all raised. Besides, in arriving at its judgment, the CA took into full consideration the Commissioners’ Reports, which recommended the payment of just compensation only for the affected portions of respondents’ properties; if it believed otherwise, the appellate court would have so indicated, and it would have taken exception to the said reports and arrived at its own independent consideration of the case.


It has always been the rule that “the only portion of the decision that may be the subject of execution is that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion. Whatever may be found in the body of the decision can only be considered as part of the reasons or conclusions of the court and serve only as guides to determine the ratio decidendi.” “Where there is a conflict between the dispositive portion of the decision and the body thereof, the dispositive portion controls irrespective of what appears in the body of the decision. While the body of the decision, order or resolution might create some ambiguity in the manner of the court’s reasoning preponderates, it is the dispositive portion thereof that finally invests rights upon the parties, sets conditions for the exercise of those rights, and imposes corresponding duties or obligation.” Thus, with the decretal portion of the trial court’s November 7, 2005 Decision particularly stating that NPC shall have the lawful right to enter, take possession and acquire easement of right-of-way over the affected portions of respondents’ properties upon the payment of just compensation, any order executing the trial court’s Decision should be based on such dispositive portion. “An order of execution is based on the disposition, not on the body, of the decision.”


Execution must therefore conform to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive part of the decision. Since there is a disparity between the dispositive portion of the trial court’s November 7, 2005 Decision as affirmed with modification by the final and executory June 26, 2007 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 86712 – which decreed that respondents be paid just compensation only for the affected portions of their properties, totaling 1,595.91 square meters – and the Notice of Garnishment – for the satisfaction of the amount of P5,594,462.50 representing just compensation for the whole 7,015 square meters – the latter must be declared null and void.


It is a settled general principle that a writ of execution must conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated. Execution not in harmony with the judgment is bereft of validity. It must conform, more particularly, to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.


In the same manner, the Batangas City RTC’s September 24, 2009 and October 23, 2009 Orders are hereby declared null and void in regard only to the Notice of Garnishment, as it countermands the decretal portion of the November 7, 2005 Decision and completely changes the tenor thereof by holding NPC liable to pay for the value of the whole of respondents’ properties; all proceedings held for the purpose of amending or altering the dispositive portion of the trial court’s November 7, 2005 Decision, as affirmed with modification by the CA’s final and executory June 26, 2007 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 86712, are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. This is exactly what the Court said in one case:


Moreover, petitioner is correct in saying that impleading her for the purpose of execution is tantamount to modifying a decision that had long become final and executory. The fallo of the 1997 Decision by the NLRC only held “respondents Pro Agency Manila Inc., and Abdul Rahman Al Mahwes to jointly and severally pay complainants x x x.” By holding her liable despite not being ordained as such by the decision, both the CA and NLRC violated the doctrine on immutability of judgments.


In PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we stressed that “respondent’s [petitioner’s] obligation is based on the judgment rendered by the trial court. The dispositive portion or the fallo is its decisive resolution and is thus the subject of execution. x x x. Hence the execution must conform with that which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.”


In INIMACO v. NLRC, we also held thus:


None of the parties in the case before the Labor Arbiter appealed the Decision dated March 10, 1987, hence the same became final and executory. It was, therefore, removed from the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC to further alter or amend it. Thus, the proceedings held for the purpose of amending or altering the dispositive portion of the said decision are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Also, the Alias Writ of Execution is null and void because it varied the tenor of the judgment in that it sought to enforce the final judgment against ‘‘Antonio Gonzales/Industrial Management Development Corp. (INIMACO) and/or Filipinas Carbon and Mining Corp. and Gerardo Sicat, which makes the liability solidary.

In other words, “[o]nce a decision or order becomes final and executory, it is removed from the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further alter or amend it. It thereby becomes immutable and unalterable and any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose. An order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.”


The failure of NPC to include a notice of hearing in its Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court’s September 24, 2009 Order has been rendered irrelevant considering our pronouncement that the said Order is null and void on the matter covering the Notice of Garnishment. “A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent. Such judgment or order may be resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it is involved. It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored.”[50]


WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. Judgment is hereby rendered as follows:


1. The January 20, 2011 Decision and August 9, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 112054 are PARTIALLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE;


2. The September 24, 2009 and October 23, 2009 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch VII in Civil Case No. 5785 are declared NULL and VOID IN PART, in that the Notice of Garnishment is nullified and set aside;


3. Petitioner National Power Corporation is adjudged liable to PAY JUST COMPENSATION to respondents Felicisimo Tarcelo and the Heirs of Comia Santos for the affected portions of their respective properties totaling 1,595.91 square meters, at P797.50 per square meter, subject to interest at the rate of twelve per cent (12%) per annum from July 29, 2002 up to June 30, 2013, and thereafter, six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction, pursuant to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas-Monetary Board Circular No. 799, Series of 2013 and applicable jurisprudence;


4. Petitioner National Power Corporation is DIRECTED to pay the Commissioners’ Fees as set forth in the November 7, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch VII in Civil Case No. 5785.


SO ORDERED.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered