Just compensation: a question of law

In an eminent domain case, as in any other case, the tradition is to first resolve the procedural matter raised by the parties. Particularly, for example, in the case of Republic v. Libunao, the adjective issue was whether petitioner should pay just compensation for the entire area of the landowners' properties or only an easement fee of 10% of the market value of the properties traversed by the transmission lines is a factual matter which is not proper for a petition for review.

In National Power Corporation v. Purefoods Corporation, the Supreme Court held:

There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. When there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law. The issue raised by petitioner of whether or not only an easement fee of 10% of the market value of the expropriated properties should be paid to the affected owners is a question of law. This issue does not call for the reevaluation of the probative value of the evidence presented but rather the determination of whether the pertinent laws cited by NAPOCOR in support of its argument are applicable to the instant case. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES RUPERTO LIBUNAO and SONIA P. SANOPO & HEIRS OF BENITA DOMINGO, Respondents. G.R. No. 166553, July 30, 2009.)