NPC v. CAMPOS

NPC v. CAMPOS

GR NO. 143643 (2003)

FACTS:

FEBRUARY 2, 1996 – RESPONDENTS FILED A COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

RESPONDENTS:

-          alleged that they are the owners of a parcel of land situated in Bo. San Agustin, Dasmariñas, Cavite, consisting of 66,819 square meters covered by TCT No. T-957323.

-          1970 - Dr. Paulo C. Campos, who was then the President of the Cavite Electric Cooperative and brother of respondent Jose C. Campos, Jr., verbally requested the respondents to grant the petitioner a right-of-way over a portion of the subject property.

-          Wooden electrical posts and transmission lines were to be installed for the electrification of Puerto Azul.

-          The respondents acceded to this request upon the condition that the said installation would only be temporary in nature.

-          Pursuant to their understanding, NAPOCOR installed wooden posts across a portion of plaintiffs' property occupying a total area of about 2,000 square meters more or less.

-          Respondent has estimated that the aggregate rental (which they peg at the conservative rate of P1.00 per square meter) of the 2,000 square meters for twenty-four (24) years period, would amount to the aggregate sum of P480,000.00.

-          From the time National Power Corporation installed those temporary wooden posts, no notice was ever served upon the plaintiffs of their intention to relocate the same or to install permanent transmission line on the property. Also, there was no personal contact between them.

PETITIONER:

-          assured the respondents that the arrangement would be temporary and that the wooden electric posts would be relocated as soon as permanent posts and transmission lines shall have been installed.

PROBLEM/CONFLICT:

-          Contrary to the verbal agreement of the parties, the petitioner continued to use the subject property for its wooden electrical posts and transmission lines without compensating the respondents therefor.

-           

ALSO ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT:

-     1994 - the petitioner's agents trespassed on the subject property and conducted engineering surveys thereon.

o   The respondents' caretaker asked these agents to leave the property.

-           1995 - a certain "Mr. Raz," who claimed to be the petitioner's agent, went to the office of respondent Jose C. Campos, Jr., then Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and requested permission from the latter to enter the subject property and conduct a survey in connection with the petitioner's plan to erect an all-steel transmission line tower on a 24square meter area inside the subject property.

o   Respondent Jose Campos, Jr., refused to grant the permission and expressed his preference to talk to the Chief of the Calaca Substation or the head of the petitioner's Quezon City office.

o   The respondents did not hear from "Mr. Raz" or any one from the petitioner's oce since then.

-          Sometime in July or August of 1995, the petitioner's agents again trespassed on the subject property, presenting to the respondents' caretaker a letter of authority purportedly written by respondent Jose C. Campos, Jr.

o   When the caretaker demanded that the letter be given to him for verification with respondent Jose C. Campos, Jr. himself, the petitioner's agents refused to do so.

o   Consequently, the caretaker ordered the agents to leave the subject property.

-          PETITIONER FILED AN EXPROPRIATION CASE

o   December 12, 1995, the petitioner instituted an expropriation case involving the subject property before the RTC of Imus, Cavite, Branch 22. (Civil Case No. 1174-95).

o   for the expropriation of 5,320 square meters of plaintiffs' above-described property to be used as right-of-way for the all-steel transmission line tower of the Calaca-Dasmariñas 230 KV T/L Project.

PETITIONER:

o   the subject property was selected "in a manner compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury"

o   and that it (petitioner) had tried to negotiate with the respondents for the acquisition of the right-of-way easement on the subject property but that the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement.

RESPONDENTs

o   there were other more suitable or appropriate sites for the petitioner's all-steel transmission lines

o   and that the petitioner chose the subject property in a whimsical and capricious manner.

o   the proposed right-of-way was not the least injurious to them as the system design prepared by the petitioner could be further revised to avoid having to traverse the subject property.

o   they vigorously denied negotiating with the petitioner in connection with the latter's acquisition of a right-of-way on the subject property. 

ALSO ALLEGED: RESPONDENT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO SOLAR RESOURCES INC.

-          unaware of the petitioner's intention to expropriate a portion of the subject property, the respondents sold the same to Solar Resources, Inc.

-          As a consequence, the respondents stand to lose a substantial amount of money derived from the proceeds of the sale of the subject property should the buyer (Solar Resources, Inc.) decide to annul the sale because of the contemplated expropriation of the subject property.

RESPONDENTS PRAYED FOR THE FOLLOWING BEFORE RTC:

-          Actual damages for the use of defendants' property since middle 1970's, including legal interest thereon, as may be established during the trial;

-          P1,000,000.00 as nominal damages;

-          P1,000,000.00 as moral damages;

-          Lost business opportunity as may be established during the trial;

-          P250,000.00 as attorney's fees;

-          Costs of suit.

PETITIONER’S ANSWER/RESPONSE

-          instead of filing an answer, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the action had prescribed and that there was another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.

RTC RULING (Procedural aspect)

-          May 2, 1996 - the RTC denied petitioner's motion to dismiss.

-          MFR also denied

-          July 24, 1996- granting the respondents' motion to declared the petitioner in default for its failure to file an answer.

-          Respondent’s motion to set aside order = DENIED

RESPONDENT WENT TO THE CA

-          certiorari, prohibition and preliminary injunction (CA-G.R. SP No. 41782)

-          assailing RTC orders

CA RULING: DISMISSED

BACK TO THE RTC PROCEEDINGS (Substantial aspect)

-          Just a few meters from the planned right-of-way is an abandoned road occupied by squatters; it is a government property and the possession of which the NPC need not compensate.

-          NPC had not exercised judiciously in the proper selection of the property to be appropriated. Evidently, NPC's choice was whimsical and capricious.

-          Such arbitrary selection of plaintiffs' property despite the availability of another property in a manner compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury, constitutes an impermissible encroachment of plaintiffs' proprietary rights and their right to due process and equal protection.

-          But before a person can be deprived of his property through the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the requisites of law must strictly be complied with.

-          No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for public use and always upon payment of just compensation. Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts shall protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his possession.

-          It would therefore seem that the expropriation had indeed departed from its own purpose and turns out to be an instrument to repudiate compliance with obligation legally and validly contracted

RTC RULING:

-          NPC is ordered to pay the respondents:

o   actual damages – P480M

o   moral damages – P1M

o   nominal damages – P500K

o   attorney’s fees – P150K

o   Cost of suit – P11,239.00

PETITIONER APPEAL TO THE CA

CA RULING:

-          the respondents' claim for compensation and damages had not prescribed because Section 3(i) of the petitioner's Charter, Republic Act No. 6395, as amended, is not applicable to the case.

-          The CA likewise gave scant consideration to the petitioner's claim that the respondents' complaint should be dismissed on the ground of litis pendencia .

-          the complaint a quo was the more appropriate action considering that the venue for the expropriation case (Civil Case No. 1174-95) was initially improperly laid.

o   The petitioner filed the expropriation proceedings with the RTC in Imus, Cavite, when the subject property is located in Dasmariñas, Cavite.

o   The parties in the two actions are not the same since the respondents were no longer included as defendants in the petitioner's amended complaint in the expropriation case (Civil Case No. 1174-95) but were already replaced by Solar Resources, Inc., the buyer of the subject property, as defendant therein.

-          the damages awarded by the RTC in favor of the respondents just and reasonable

ISSUES:

1. W/N the respondents’ complaint should be dismissed on the ground of prescription

2.  W/N nominal and moral damages, attorney’s fees and costs of litigation be awarded to the respondents

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS (all found untenable)

1.       ARTICLE 620 OF THE CIVIL CODE, the petitioner contends that it had already acquired the easement of right-of-way over the portion of the subject property by prescription, the said easement having been allegedly continuous and apparent for a period of about twenty-three (23) years, i . e ., from about the middle of 1970 to the early part of 1994.

2.       INVOKES SECTION 3(I) OF RA 6395 in asserting that the respondents already waived their right to institute any action for compensation and/or damages concerning the acquisition of the easement of right-of-way in the subject property

3.       concludes that the award of damages in favor of the respondents is not warranted or baseless under Section 3(c ) of RA 6395. The claim for damages has prescribed.

RULING:

1. The petitioner never acquired the requisite possession in this case and therefore cannot acquire easement of right-of-way by prescription

(the petitioner contends that it had already acquired the easement of right-of-way over the portion of the subject property by prescription = UNTENABLE)

-          Art. 620 of Civil Code. “Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either by virtue of a title or by prescription of ten years.”

-          Prescription as a mode of acquisition requires the existence of the following:

o   (1) capacity to acquire by prescription;

o   (2) a thing capable of acquisition by prescription;

o   (3) possession of the thing under certain conditions; and

o   (4) lapse of time provided by law.

-          Acquisitive prescription may either be:

o   ordinary, in which case the possession must be in good faith and with just title

o   extraordinary, in which case there is neither good faith nor just title.

o   In either case, there has to be possession which must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted.

-          Art. 1119 of Civil Code: “Acts of possessory character executed in virtue of license or by mere tolerance of the owner shall not be available for the purposes of possession.”

IN RELATION TO THE CASE

-          records clearly reveal that the petitioner's possession of that portion of the subject property where it erected the wooden posts and transmission lines was merely upon the tolerance of the respondents.

o   this permissive use by the petitioner of that portion of the subject property, no matter how long continued, will not create an easement of right-of-way by prescription

-          the petitioner's claim that it had acquired the easement of right-of-way by prescription must perforce fail.

o   possession is the fundamental basis of prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary.

o   The petitioner never acquired the requisite possession in this case.

o   Its use of that portion of the subject property where it erected the wooden poles and transmission lines was due merely to the tacit license and tolerance of the respondents.

o   As such, it cannot be made the basis of the acquisition of an easement of right-of-way by prescription.

2.  SECTION 3(i) of RA 6395 NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE NPC DID NOT ACQUIRE TITLE OF THE PROPERTY

(Petitioner contends that under SECTION 3(I) OF RA 6395, respondents already waived their right to institute any action for compensation and/or damages concerning the acquisition of the easement of right-of-way in the subject property = UNTENABLE)

-          Sec 3(i) of RA 6395: “The Corporation or its representatives may also enter upon private property in the lawful performance or prosecution of its business or purposes, including the construction of transmission lines thereon; Provided, that the owner of such private property shall be paid the just compensation therefor in accordance with the provisions hereinafter provided; Provided further, that any action by any person claiming compensation and/or damages shall be filed within five years after the right-of-way, transmission lines, substations, plants or other facilities shall have been established: Provided, finally , that after the said period no suit shall be brought to question the said right-of-way, transmission lines, substations, plants or other facilities nor the amounts of compensation and/or damages involved;”

-          Two requisites must be complied before the above provision of law may be invoked:

1. -      The petitioner entered upon the private property in the lawful performance or prosecution of its businesses or purposes;
2. -         The owner of the private property shall be paid the just compensation therefor

IN RELATION TO THE CASE

-          AS CORRECTLY ASSERTED BY RESPONDENTS presupposes that the petitioner had already taken the property through a negotiated sale or the exercise of the power of eminent domain, and not where, as in this case, the petitioner was merely temporarily allowed to erect wooden electrical posts and transmission lines on the subject property

-          the five-year period provided under Section 3(i) of Rep. Act No. 6395, as amended, within which all claims for compensation and/or damages may be allowed against the petitioner should be reckoned from the time that it acquired title over the private property on which the right-of-way is sought to be established. Prior thereto, the claims for compensation and/or damages do not prescribe.

-          Undeniably, NPC never acquired title over the property over which its wooden electrical posts and transmission lines were erected. It never filed expropriation proceedings against such property. Neither did it negotiate for the sale of the same. It was merely allowed to temporarily enter into the premises. As NPC's entry was gained through permission

3. FOLLOWING THE RULING THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE RESPONDENTS HAD NOT PRESCRIBED, IT WOULD FOLLOW THEN THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER NPC MUST FAIL

MORAL DAMAGES WERE CORRECTLY AWARDED.

-          An award of moral damages would require certain conditions to be met, to wit:

o   (1) first, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant;

o   (2) second, there must be a culpable act or omission factually established;

o   (3) third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and

o   (4) fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

-          NPC made it appear that it negotiated with the appellees when no actual negotiation took place. This allegation seriously affected the ongoing sale of the property to Solar Resources, Inc. as appellees seemed to have sold the property knowing fully well that a portion thereof was being expropriated

o   falls well within Article 21 of the Civil Code. NPC's subterfuge certainly besmirched the reputation and professionally standing of Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Professor Maria Clara A. Lopez-Campos, and caused them physical suffering, mental anguish, moral shock and wounded feeling

o   Considering the background of the respondent spouses as SC Assoc Justice and a Professor Emerita of UP College of Law, it does not take too much imagination to conclude that the oppressive and wanton manner in which NPC sought to exercise its statutory right of eminent domain warranted the grant of moral damages.

NOMINAL DAMAGES WERE CORRECTLY AWARDED.

-          nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

-          Similarly, the court may award nominal damages in every case where any property right has been invaded.

-      

    The petitioner, in blatant disregard of the respondents' proprietary right, trespassed the subject property and conducted engineering surveys thereon. It even attempted to deceive the respondents' caretaker by claiming that its agents were authorized by the respondents to enter the property when in fact, the respondents never gave such authority.

ATTORNEYS FEES WERE CORRECTLY AWARDED AS PART OF DAMAGES.

-          considering that by the petitioner's unjustied acts, the respondents were obviously compelled to litigate and incur expenses to protect their interests over the subject property.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated June 16, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 54265 is AFFIRMED in toto.