FACTS:
On June 28, 1963, a free patent over three (3)
hectares of land, situated in barrio Baybayog, municipality of Alcala, province
of Cagayan was issued in the name of respondent's predecessor-in-interest,
Vicente Manglapus, subject to the following proviso expressly stated in the
title: "...except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units,
or institutions, the land hereby acquired shall be inalienable and shall not be
subject to encumbrance for a period of five (5) years from the date of this
patent [...] and subject finally to all conditions and public easements and
servitudes recognized and prescribed by law..." Subsequently, respondent
Manglapus acquired the lot from Vicente Manglapus by absolute sale.
Sometime in 1982, NIA entered into a contract with
Villamar Development Construction. Under the contract, NIA was to construct
canals in Amulung, Cagayan and Alcala, Cagayan. NIA then entered a portion of
Manglapus' land and made diggings and fillings thereon.
On March 14, 1991, Manglapus filed a complaint for
damages against NIA, alleging that NIA's diggings and fillings destroyed the
agricultural use of his land and that no reasonable compensation was paid for
its taking.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the NIA should pay Manglapus just
compensation for the taking of a portion of his property for use as easement of
a right of way.
DECISION:
NIA is under no obligation to pay for just
compensation. The Court affirmed NIA's contention that the Transfer Certificate
of Title and the Original Certificate of Title covering the subject parcel of
land contained a reservation granting the government a right of way over the
land covered therein. The Court noted that the canal NIA constructed was only
eleven (11) meters in width which is well within the limit provided by law.
Manglapus has therefore no cause to complain. Article 619 of the Civil Code
provides that, "Easements are established either by law or by the will of
the owners. The former are called legal and the latter voluntary
easements." In the present case, the Court found and declared that a legal
easement of a right-of-way exists in favor of the government. The land was
originally public land, and awarded to respondent Manglapus by free patent. The
ruling would be otherwise if the land were originally private property, in
which case, just compensation must be paid for the taking of a part thereof for
public use as an easement of a right of way.
No comments:
Post a Comment