NGCP Vs Bautista Digest

[ G.R. No.
232120, September 30, 2020 ]
NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CLARA C. BAUTISTA,

MARRIED TO REY R. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT
Facts:
In its bid to improve the capacity of its transmission system and meet the increasing demand for
electricity, petitioner (NGCP) entered into the Kirahon-Maramag 230 KV Transmission Line Project which
required the acquisition of Clara C. Bautista's (respondent) property. Pursuant to Petitioner (NGCP) filed
a Complaint for Expropriation against respondent. It alleged that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
zonal valuation for the property is P10.00 per sq. m. or P13,140.00, while the cost of the improvement
stands at P40,679.36 for a total price of P53,819.36.6.
Respondent opposed the petition and countered that the BIR zonal valuation is less than the
property's fair market value.7 She further asserted that although the property is classified as agricultural,
its actual use is residential and the lots adjacent thereto are already industrial in character.
Based on the Court Commissioner's Report prepared by Commissioner Lantong and

Commissioner Cipriano, the fair market of the property is at P3,000.00 per sq. m.
However, Commissioner Polloso submitted his own Commissioner's Report wherein he

recommended that the just compensation for the property is only at P25.00 per sq. m. upon considering
its extent and character, zoning value, current land classification in the locality, its assessment value, and
highest and best use. He further indicated that the property is classified as an agricultural land based on
its tax declaration and zoned as "agricultural protection".
RTC ordered plaintiff NGCP to pay defendants just compensation in the amount of P600.00 per
square meter or a total of P788,400.00.
The RTC took judicial notice of the other expropriation cases pending therein that involved
properties similarly located in Brgy. North Poblacion, Maramag, Bukidnon classified as agricultural land
and yet, upon ocular inspection, were industrial and/or zoned as "built-up" wherein the recommended
amounts for just compensation were P220.00 and P600.00 per sq. m.184
Upon petitioner (NGCP)'s Motion for Reconsideration,19 the RTC only deleted the award for cost
of suit. Dissatisfied, petitioner (NGCP) appealed to the Court of Appeals.
CA ruled that petitioner (NGCP)'s failure to file an Appellant's Brief was an abandonment of its
appeal which caused its dismissal.
Issue: WON the RTC’s computation based on judicial notice is more in accord with the principle of just
compensation
With respect to petitioner (NGCP)'s assertion that the subject property must be valued as an
agricultural land, courts enjoy sufficient judicial discretion to determine the classification of lands because
such classification is one of the relevant standards for the assessment of the value of lands subject of
expropriation proceedings47 Thus, despite the subject property's zonal classification as agricultural in the
tax declaration and municipal zoning ordinance, the zoning classification made by the designated
Municipal Zoning Administrator, Commissioner Cipriano, backed by the Municipal Assessor,
Commissioner Lantong, is more persuasive considering that an actual ocular inspection of the subject
property indicated that it has become a "built-up"48 area based on the present development trend of the
land and use pattern.49
There is also no cogent reason for the Court to annul and set aside the amount fixed herein as
just compensation on the ground that the RTC took judicial notice of other expropriation cases involving
properties similarly situated. The RTC did not merely adopt by reference the commissioner's reports in
the other cited expropriation cases, but took it into account in assessing just compensation because the
properties subject of the other cases were situated in the same place. As opined by Associate Justice
Edgardo L. Paras, "[a] court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case, of facts
established in prior proceedings in the same case, of the authenticity of its own records of another case
between the same parties, of the files of related cases in the same court, and of public records on file in
the same court.50 In any case, it was not the only factor considered by the RTC. As can be gleaned from
the RTC Decision, the court also factored in the subject property's actual use, its location, and its current
market value. Between the valuation submitted by petitioner (NGCP)'s commissioner at a measly sum of
P25.00 per sq. m., and that of the other two commissioners at P3,000.00 per sq. m. based on tine
purchase price of a single deed of sale, the RTC's computation is more in accord with the principle that
payment of just compensation for private property taken for public use, as guaranteed no less by our
Constitution and is included in the Bill of Rights, should be measured not by the taker's gain, but the
owner's loss and that the amount to be tendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full
and ample.51

NGCP Vs Bautista Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NGCP Vs Bautista Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NGCP Vs Bautista Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[ G.R. No.

232120, September 30, 2020 ]

NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CLARA C. BAUTISTA,

Based on the Court Commissioner's Report prepared by Commissioner Lantong and

However, Commissioner Polloso submitted his own Commissioner's Report wherein he

You might also like