National Power Corporation
National Power Corporation
National Power Corporation
1. Denying [respondents]
prayer for [NPC] to dismantle the
underground tunnels constructed
beneath the lands of [respondents]
in Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Survey Plan
DECISION
FP (VII-5) 2278;
NACHURA, J.:
2. Ordering [NPC] to pay
to [respondents] the fair market
value of said 70,000 square meters
Petitioner National Power Corporation
of land covering Lots 1, 2, and 3 as
(NPC) filed this Petition for Review described in Survey Plan FP (VII-
5) 2278 less the area of 21,995
on Certiorari, seeking to nullify the May 30, 2008
square meters at P1,000.00 per
Decision[1]of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. square meter or a total
of P48,005,000.00 for the
SP No. 02065-MIN, affirming the Order dated
remaining unpaid portion of 48,005
November 13, 2007 issued by Hon. Amer R. Ibrahim, square meters; with 6% interest per
annum from the filing of this case
which granted respondents motion for issuance of a
until paid;
writ of execution.
3. Ordering [NPC] to pay
The antecedents.
[respondents] a reasonable monthly
Lucman G. Ibrahim and his co-heirs Omar rental of P0.68 per square meter of
the total area of 48,005 square
G. Maruhom, Elias G. Maruhom, Bucay G.
meters effective from its occupancy
Maruhom, Mamod G. Maruhom, Farouk G. of the foregoing area in 1978 or a
total of P7,050,974.40.
Maruhom, Hidjara G. Maruhom, Rocania G.
Maruhom, Potrisam G. Maruhom, Lumba G. 4. Ordering [NPC] to pay
[respondents] the sum
Maruhom, Sinab G. Maruhom, Acmad G. Maruhom,
of P200,000.00 as moral damages;
Solayman G. Maruhom, Mohamad M. Ibrahim and and
Cairoronesa M. Ibrahim (respondents) are owners of
5. Ordering [NPC] to pay
a 70,000-square meter lot in Saduc, Marawi City. the further sum of P200,000.00 as
attorneys fees and the costs.
Sometime in 1978, NPC, without respondents
knowledge and consent, took possession of the SO ORDERED.[3]
subterranean area of the land and constructed therein
underground tunnels. The tunnels were used by NPC Respondents then filed an Urgent Motion for
in siphoning the water of Lake Lanao and in the Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal. On the other
operation of NPCs Agus II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII hand, NPC filed a Notice of Appeal. Thereafter, it
projects located in Saguiran, Lanao del Sur; Nangca filed a vigorous opposition to the motion for
and Balo-i in Lanao del Norte; and Ditucalan and execution of judgment pending appeal with a motion
Fuentes in Iligan City. Respondents only discovered for reconsideration of the RTC decision.
the existence of the tunnels sometime in July 1992. On August 26, 1996, NPC withdrew its
Thus, on October 7, 1992, respondents demanded Notice of Appeal to give way to the hearing of its
motion for reconsideration. On August 28, 1996, the
2. Awarding the sum of P1,476,911.00 to
RTC issued an Order granting execution pending
herein [respondents] Omar G. Maruhom,
appeal and denying NPCs motion for Elias G. Maruhom, Bucay G. Maruhom,
Mahmod G. Maruhom, Farouk G.
reconsideration. The Decision of the RTC was
Maruhom, Hidjara G. Maruhom, Portrisam
executed pending appeal and the funds of NPC were G. Maruhom and Lumba G. Maruhom as
reasonable rental deductible from the
garnished by respondents.
awarded sum of P7,050,974.40 pertaining to
On October 4, 1996, Lucman Ibrahim and [respondents].
respondents Omar G. Maruhom, Elias G. Maruhom,
3. Ordering [NPC] embodied in the August
Bucay G. Maruhom, Mamod G. Maruhom, Farouk G. 7, 1996 decision to pay [respondents] the
sum of P200,000.00 as moral damages; and
Maruhom, Hidjara G. Maruhom, Potrisam G.
further sum ofP200,000.00 as attorneys fees
Maruhom and Lumba G. Maruhom filed a Petition and costs.
for Relief from Judgment,[4] asserting as follows:
SO ORDERED.[6]
Clearly, the writ of execution issued by the RTC and The term just compensation had been
affirmed by the CA does not vary, but is, in fact, defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property
consistent with the final decision in this case. The taken from its owner by the expropriator. The
assailed writ is, therefore, valid. measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss.
The word just is used to intensify the meaning of the
Indeed, expropriation is not limited to the word compensation and to convey thereby the idea
acquisition of real property with a corresponding that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to
transfer of title or possession. The right-of-way be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample.[18]
easement resulting in a restriction or limitation on
property rights over the land traversed by In Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative,
transmission lines also falls within the ambit of the Inc. v. Court of Appeals[19] and National Power
term expropriation.[15] Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial
[20]
Development Corporation, this Court sustained the
As we explained in Camarines Norte award of just compensation equivalent to the fair and
Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:[16] full value of the property even if petitioners only
sought the continuation of the exercise of their right-
The acquisition of an easement of a right-of-
way falls within the purview of the power of of-way easement and not the ownership over the
eminent domain. Such conclusion finds
land. There is simply no basis for NPC to claim that
support in easements of right-of-way where
the Supreme Court sustained the award of the payment of fair market value without the
just compensation for private property
concomitant transfer of title constitutes an unjust
condemned for public use. The Supreme
Court, inRepublic v. PLDT thus held that: enrichment.
In fine, the issuance by the RTC of a writ of
execution and the notice of garnishment to satisfy the
judgment in favor of respondents could not be
considered grave abuse of discretion. The term grave
abuse of discretion, in its juridical sense, connotes
capricious, despotic, oppressive, or whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse must be of such degree as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where
the power is exercised in an arbitrary and capricious
manner by reason of passion and hostility. The
word capricious, usually used in tandem with the
term arbitrary, conveys the notion of willful and
unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the
corrective hand of certiorari, a clear showing of
caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion
is imperative.[21] In this case, NPC utterly failed to
demonstrate caprice or arbitrariness on the part of the
RTC in granting respondents motion for
execution. Accordingly, the CA committed no
reversible error in dismissing NPCs petition
for certiorari.
SO ORDERED.