Jurisprudence Ejectment 2021-6

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5

G.R. No.

195217, January 13, 2021 ]

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC), PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES RUFO AND TOMASA LLORIN, REPR
BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, CORAZON CANDELARIA, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

The Case

Petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC)1 assails the Court of Appeals' Decision2 dated June 27, 2008 and
Resolution3 dated January 12, 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 101986 upholding the order for NPC to vacate subject prope
pay monthly rentals thereon.

Antecedents

On October 27, 2006, respondents Spouses Rufo and Tomasa Llorin (Spouses Llorin), represented by their attorney-
Corazon Candelaria filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)-Naga City a complaint for unlawful detaine
NPC docketed Civil Case No. 12712. It was raffled off to Branch 1.

Essentially, Spouses Llorin alleged that they are the registered owners of a 102,606-square meter (sq. m.) parcel of l
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 29725 (Lot 3162-B-2 of subdivision survey Psd-05-020261) and located in Brgy. S
Naga City.

Sometime in 1978, NPC occupied the property without the consent of their predecessors-in-interest and started the c
and installation of 69 kV Naga-Tinambac power transmission lines, affecting a total of 10,500 sq. m. of the property.

Their predecessors-in-interest tolerated NPC's occupation of their property on the latter's assurance that the structure
temporary, it would vacate the property when the owners already needed it and monthly rentals would be paid.

When they and their predecessors-in-interest subsequently demanded the return of the property and payment of mon
NPC continuously failed and refused to heed their demand. Thus, on August 30, 2006, they served their last formal d
NPC.

In its answer with compulsory counterclaim, NPC claimed that the complaint should be dismissed because it stated n
action against it. The subject transmission assets had already been transferred to the National Transmission Corpora
(TRANSCO) by virtue of Republic Act No. 91365 (RA 9136). The complaint was also barred by prescription and lache

Ruling of the MTCC

Under Decision7 dated June 19, 2007, the MTCC ruled in favor of Spouses Llorin, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, decision is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff Sps. Rufo Llorin and Tomasa Ti
ordering defendant NAPOCOR

1. To vacate the subject properties and turn over it [sic] possession to plaintiff;

2. To pay to plaintiff monthly rental of Php5,000.00 per month as rental for the use of land from Septe
until the land is finally vacated;
3. To pay to plaintiff the amount of Php20,000.00 as attorney's fee plus cost.

SO ORDERED.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

On appeal, RTC-Naga City, Branch 26, affirmed under Decision8 dated December 7, 2007.

NPC consequently went to the Court of Appeals by way of petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

By Decision9 dated June 27, 2008, the Court of Appeals, too, affirmed, thus:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated December 7, 2007 of the Region
Court, Branch 26, Naga City, which affirmed the Decision dated June 19, 2007 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, B
Naga City in Civil Case No. 12712 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient for unlawful detainer to prosper. The r
Spouses Llorin to recover possession of their property cannot be defeated by laches or prescription. The non-inclusio
TRANSCO in the case was not fatal considering that the parties, during the pre-trial, had already agreed that the own
the transmission lines remained with NPC and TRANSCO is its operator.

Under Resolution10 dated January 12, 2011, the Court of Appeals denied NPC's motion for reconsideration.

The Present Petition

NPC argues in the main that (1) the MTCC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, (2) the compla
already barred by laches and prescription, (3) TRANSCO, an indispensable party, was not impleaded, and (4) the pro
of Spouses Llorin was to claim for just compensation.

Considering that Spouses Llorin failed to file the required comment, the Court resolved to dispense with it per Resolu
October 9, 2019.

Issue

Does an action for unlawful detainer lie to oust the NPC (TRANSCO) from the property which holds its 69 kV Naga-T
power transmission lines since 1978?

Ruling

We reverse.

There is no dispute that since 1978, subject property has been devoted for a public purpose serving as site for the go
69 kV Naga-Tinambac power transmission lines.  Under RA 9136, TRANSCO has assumed the electrical transmissio
ℒαwρhi ৷

of the NPC, including the latter's power of eminent domain necessary for the discharge of these functions. Sec. 8 of R
provides:

SEC. 8. Creation of the National Transmission Company. There is hereby created a National Transmission Corporati
hereinafter referred to as TRANSCO, which shall assume the electrical transmission function of the National Power C
(NPC), and have the power and functions hereinafter granted. The TRANSCO shall assume the authority and respon
NPC for the planning, construction and centralized operation and maintenance of its high voltage transmission facilitie
grid interconnections and ancillary services.

Within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, the transmission and subtransmission facilities of NPC and all oth
related to transmission operations, including the nationwide franchise of NPC for the operation of the transmission sy
the grid, shall be transferred to the TRANSCO. The TRANSCO shall be wholly owned by the Power Sector Assets an
Management Corporation (PSALM Corp.).

The subtransmission functions and assets shall be segregated from the transmission functions, assets and liabilities
transparency and disposal: Provided, That the subtransmission assets shall be operated and maintained by TRANSC
disposal to qualified distribution utilities which are in a position to take over the responsibility for operating, maintainin
upgrading, and expanding said assets. All transmission and subtransmission related liabilities of NPC shall be transfe
assumed by the PSALM Corp.

TRANSCO shall negotiate with and thereafter transfer such functions, assets, and associated liabilities to the qualifie
distribution utility or utilities connected to such subtransmission facilities not later than two (2) years from the effectivit
or the start of open access, whichever comes earlier: x x x.

As ordained in the leading case of National Transmission Corp. v. Bermuda Development Corp.,11 for reasons of pub
and public necessity, as well as equitable estoppel, the remedy of unlawful detainer is unavailing to compel a public u
vacate subject property. "The proper recourse is for the ejectment court: (1) to dismiss the case without prejudice to t
landowner filing the proper action for recovery of just compensation and consequential damages; or (2) to dismiss the
direct the public utility corporation to institute the proper expropriation or condemnation proceedings and to pay the ju
compensation and consequential damages assessed therein; or (3) to continue with the case as if it were an expropr
and determine the just compensation and consequential damages pursuant to Rule 67 (Expropriation) of the Rules o
the ejectment court has jurisdiction over the value of the subject land." Thus:

Thus, it is well-settled that a case filed by a landowner for recovery of possession or ejectment against a public utility
endowed with the power of eminent domain, which has occupied the land belonging to the former in the interest of pu
without prior acquisition of title thereto by negotiated purchase or expropriation proceedings, will not prosper. Any act
compel the public utility corporation to vacate such property is unavailing since the landowner is denied the remedies
ejectment and injunction for reasons of public policy and public necessity as well as equitable estoppel. The proper re
for the ejectment court: (1) to dismiss the case without prejudice to the landowner filing the proper action for recovery
compensation and consequential damages; or (2) to dismiss the case and direct the public utility corporation to institu
proper expropriation or condemnation proceedings and to pay the just compensation and consequential damages as
therein; or (3) to continue with the case as if it were an expropriation case and determine the just compensation and
consequential damages pursuant to Rule 67 (Expropriation) of the Rules of Court, if the ejectment court has jurisdicti
value of the subject land. (Emphasis supplied)

Here, the MTCC therefore should have dismissed the case without prejudice to the landowner's filing of the proper ac
compensation and consequential damages; or directed the NPC (TRANSCO) to initiate the proper expropriation proc
to pay just compensation and consequential damages. Notably, the considerable length of time that elapsed before S
Llorin or their predecessors-in-interest questioned the government's so called unconsented entry into the property an
of the 69 kV Naga-Tinambac power transmission lines, sans expropriation proceedings, constitutes a waiver of their r
back its possession.12 To repeat, the remedy left for them is to claim for just compensation.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 27, 2008 and Resolution dated January 12, 20
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101986 as well as the Decision dated June 19, 2007 of the Municipal Trial Court
Naga City, Branch 1 in Civil Case No. 12712 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint for unlawful detainer fi
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities-Naga City, Branch 1 in Civil Case No. 12712 is DISMISSED, without prejudice to th
the action for just compensation and consequential damages.

SO ORDERED.

Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), Gesmundo, Lopez, and Rosario,* JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* Designated as additional member per S.O. No. 2797 dated November 5, 2020.

1 Represented by the Office of the Solicitor General through Associate Solicitor General Reynaldo L.
and Associate Solicitor Neil E. Lorenzo.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefi
Guevara-Salonga and Normandie B. Pizarro, rollo, pp. 65-75.

3 Id. at 76-77.

4 Id. at 176-177.

5 An Act Ordaining Reforms In The Electric Power Industry, Amending For The Purpose Certain Laws
Other Purposes.

6 Id. at 185-190.

7 Id. at 230-233.

8 Id. at 234-240.

9 Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefi
Guevara-Salonga and Normandie B. Pizarro, id. at 65-75.

10 Id.at 76-77.

11 G.R. No. 214782, April 3, 2019.

12 Eusebio v. Luis, 618 Phil. 586, 595-596 (2009).

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

You might also like