Calapan Lumber vs. Sawmill
Calapan Lumber vs. Sawmill
Calapan Lumber vs. Sawmill
Resolution No. 186 revoking the two previous resolutions was in order.
The fact that the survey, lay-out and actual construction of the unfinished part of the road
were done at the appellee's expense, does not convert said road after construction into a
private road, for it does not appear that the parts of the land where the road was laid out
and constructed belong to or are owned by the appellee. The evidence shows that the
owners of such parts of land ceded their parts of the land owned by them without any
consideration because of their desire to have the road completed or to connect the ends of
two completed parts of the road. It may be conceded that the appellee built the road in
question in good faith; and such being the case, it may be argued that the appellee is
entitled to keep or have possession of the road until after it shall have been reimbursed of
the expenses it had incurred in constructing and maintaining the road in good condition.
Upon the foregoing considerations, this Court is of the opinion, and so holds, that the
road involved in this case cannot be declared private property, and for that reason
the Provincial Board of Oriental Mindoro may elect between paying the appellee the total
cost of the construction of the road together with lawful interest from the date of actual
disbursement by the appellee to the date of payment by the Province of Oriental Mindoro
within a reasonable period not to exceed one year from the date this judgment shall
become final; or upon securing the recommendation of the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications and authorization of the President of the Philippines to designate such
road an toll road, to raise the necessary fund to reimburse the appellee of the total cost of
construction of the road, together with lawful interest from the date of actual disbursement
by the appellee to the date of payment by the Province of Oriental Mindoro, and the latter
is ordered to refund the amount paid for tolls by, the appellee during the enforcement of
Resolution No. 186 which, as above stated, was unauthorized.