Felisa Agricultural Corp. v. NTC, G.R. Nos. 231655 and 231670, July 02, 2018 - Synopsis Only
Learn about the transmission line dispute between Felisa Agricultural Corp and National Power Corp. The Supreme Court decision and its impact on landowners explained.
Synopsis:
The case is about a complaint filed by Felisa Agricultural Corporation (FAC) against the National Power Corporation (NPC) for recovery of possession with damages or payment of just compensation regarding the transmission towers and transmission lines located within its lands situated in Brgy. Felisa, Bacolod City. NPC claimed that it was granted the permit to enter the subject land in 1989 for the construction of the 138 KV Mabinay-Bacolod Transmission Line, and since the transmission lines have been in existence for more than ten years, a continuous easement of right of way has already been established. The issue is whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and not R.A. No. 8974 should govern the case. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that R.A. No. 8974 should govern the case, which requires the payment of the amount equivalent to 100% of the current zonal value of the property, and is evidently more favorable to the landowner than the mere deposit of its assessed value as required by Rule 67.
Doctrines:
The general rule is that upon the filing of the expropriation complaint, the plaintiff has the right to take or enter into possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property. An exception to this procedure is provided by R.A. No. 8974 with respect to national government projects, which requires the payment of 100% of the zonal value of the property to be expropriated as the provisional value.