Compensation for Access Roads in NGCP Tower Construction Philippines

I. Introduction

The construction of transmission towers by the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) almost always requires access roads or trails to transport heavy equipment, materials, steel towers, conductors, and personnel to tower sites, particularly in rural, mountainous, or undeveloped areas. While the tower footprint and the overhead transmission line right-of-way (ROW) have well-established compensation frameworks, access roads present distinct legal and practical issues because they may be temporary or permanent, may traverse multiple parcels, and may cause varying degrees of damage or restriction.

This article exhaustively discusses the legal nature of access roads in NGCP projects, the applicable compensation regime, the modes of acquisition, the determination of just compensation, relevant Supreme Court rulings, and practical realities in the field.

II. Legal Authority of NGCP to Acquire Access Roads

NGCP derives its power of eminent domain from:

1. Republic Act No. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 – EPIRA), which declares transmission of electricity a public utility and a national priority.
2. Republic Act No. 9511 (2008), which granted NGCP the 50-year congressional franchise and expressly authorizes it “to exercise the power of eminent domain subject to the requirements of the Constitution and existing laws.”
3. Rule 67 of the Rules of Court (Expropriation), as supplemented by applicable jurisprudence.

NGCP is therefore legally empowered to acquire both permanent and temporary easements, including access roads, provided the taking is for public use and just compensation is paid.

III. Classification of Access Roads in NGCP Projects

Access roads fall into three practical categories:

A. Temporary Construction Access Roads/Trails
Used only during the construction phase (typically 6–24 months). After stringing, the road is rehabilitated or abandoned.

B. Permanent Maintenance Access Roads
Required for periodic inspection, repair, and emergency response, especially in remote or flood-prone areas. These become part of the perpetual ROW.

C. Improved Existing Barangay or Farm-to-Market Roads
NGCP upgrades an existing public or private road and leaves the improvement for community use.

The classification determines the applicable compensation standard.

IV. Compensation Framework

A. Permanent Access Roads (Included in Perpetual ROW)

When NGCP declares an access road as permanent, it is treated as part of the transmission line ROW easement.

Supreme Court-established standards (applicable to both NPC and NGCP cases):

1. Tower Footprint/Occupied Area
   Full ownership or perpetual easement: 100% of fair market value (FMV).

2. Transmission Line ROW Easement (Overhead Lines)
   10% of FMV of the affected land – National Power Corporation v. Spouses Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 156050, 9 February 2007; National Power Corporation v. Purefoods Corp., G.R. No. 160725, 12 September 2008; National Power Corporation v. Ibrahim, G.R. No. 168732, 29 June 2007.

3. Permanent Access Road within the ROW Corridor
   Most courts and NGCP practice treat permanent access roads as part of the ROW easement and apply the same 10% rate, unless the road physically occupies and sterilizes the land (e.g., concrete or gravel road that prevents cultivation). In such cases, courts have awarded 50%–100% of FMV (National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828, 24 August 2011 – 100% awarded where the access road completely deprived the owner of beneficial use).

B. Temporary Access Roads

Temporary access roads are governed by the rule on “temporary taking” or “easement of convenience.”

Legal basis:

• Article 649 of the Civil Code (compulsory easement for passage)
• Jurisprudence on temporary occupation by public utilities

Compensation components:

1. Rental for the duration of use (fair rental value, usually based on prevailing agricultural land lease rates in the province).
2. Damage to crops, trees, improvements (100% replacement cost).
3. Cost of rehabilitation/restoration to original condition.
4. Disturbance compensation or inconvenience fee (commonly P50–P150 per square meter in practice, though not fixed by law).

Supreme Court position on temporary taking: National Power Corporation v. Campos, G.R. No. 143643, 27 June 2006 – the landowner is entitled to reasonable rental for the period of occupation plus damages.

In practice, NGCP often offers a lump-sum “Access Road Compensation” package ranging from P30,000 to P300,000 per tower site depending on length and damage, but landowners frequently reject it as inadequate.

C. Improved Existing Roads Left for Community Use

When NGCP concretes or gravels an existing barangay road, courts have ruled that the improvement constitutes partial just compensation, and only the differential value (if any) plus damages need be paid.

National Power Corporation v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 172509, 14 December 2011 – improvement of the road that benefits the community may be considered in reducing the compensation due.

V. Modes of ROW and Access Road Acquisition

NGCP follows a three-stage process:

1. Negotiation Phase (Voluntary Offer to Buy or Voluntary Easement Agreement)
   NGCP is required by its own ROW Acquisition Manual and DOE guidelines to negotiate in good faith for at least six months.

2. Expropriation (if negotiation fails)
   NGCP files a complaint for eminent domain.
   Under settled jurisprudence (City of Manila v. Serrano, G.R. No. 142304, 20 June 2001), NGCP may immediately seek a writ of possession upon deposit of 100% of the BIR zonal value of the property.

3. Court Determination of Just Compensation
   Commissioners (one BIR representative, one provincial assessor, one landowner representative) are appointed. The final judgment becomes the basis for full payment.

Note: Republic Act No. 10752 (The Right-of-Way Act of 2016) and its IRR do NOT apply to NGCP because it is a private entity. RA 10752 applies only to national government infrastructure projects implemented by DPWH, DOTr, etc. NGCP expropriation cases therefore follow the old Rule 67 regime (deposit = BIR zonal value), not the RA 10752 regime (initial deposit = 100% BIR zonal, replacement cost for structures, etc.).

VI. Valuation Standards Applied by Courts in NGCP/NPC Cases

The Supreme Court consistently uses the following hierarchy (Evergreen Holdings, Inc. v. Republic, G.R. No. 200211, 12 August 2020; National Power Corporation v. Spouses Zabala, G.R. No. 173520, 30 January 2013):

1. Fair market value at the time of filing of the complaint (not time of taking).
2. BIR zonal value (minimum benchmark).
3. Current tax declaration.
4. Appraisal reports of independent appraisers.
5. Prevailing market prices evidenced by deeds of sale of similar properties in the vicinity.
6. Income approach or productivity value (especially for agricultural land).

For access roads, courts often add consequential damages (loss of crops for several seasons, soil compaction affecting future yield, etc.).

VII. Common Issues and Landowner Remedies

1. NGCP contractors entering land without prior agreement – constitutes trespass; landowners may file criminal and civil cases.
2. Inadequate rehabilitation after construction – actionable under Article 2176 (quasi-delict) of the Civil Code.
3. Unilateral declaration that access road is “temporary” when it is in fact used permanently – courts have awarded additional compensation upon proof of continued use.
4. Refusal to pay for damaged fences, irrigation, or fishpond dikes – compensable at 100% replacement cost.
5. Multi-parcel access roads – each landowner must be compensated individually; NGCP cannot pay only the “endpoint” landowner.

VIII. Conclusion

Compensation for access roads in NGCP tower construction is governed by constitutional just compensation requirements, the Civil Code provisions on easements, EPIRA, RA 9511, and extensive Supreme Court jurisprudence originally developed in NPC cases and now uniformly applied to NGCP.

Permanent access roads integrated into the transmission ROW are generally compensated at 10% of FMV unless they cause substantial deprivation of use (50%–100%). Temporary access roads entitle the owner to fair rental, full damages, and restoration costs.

Landowners who believe NGCP’s offer is inadequate should reject the Voluntary Easement Agreement and force expropriation, where courts almost invariably award higher amounts than NGCP’s initial offer, often two to five times the BIR zonal value.

Given the public necessity of transmission projects, the balance struck by law and jurisprudence is clear: NGCP may take what it needs, but only upon payment of full, prompt, and fair compensation for both the land restricted and the access required to build and maintain the nation's power grid.