Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    National Power Corporation v. Maruhom (G.R.No. 183297)

    Uploaded by

    JP Murao III
    The NPC constructed underground tunnels through a private land owned by Maruhom and others without their consent in 1978. In 1992, the landowners discovered the tunnels and demanded NPC vacate and pay damages. The RTC ordered NPC to pay fair market value and monthly rentals but did not transfer land ownership. The landowners received compensation but later argued the RTC decision was misunderstood. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling, denying NPC's petition that payment of compensation required transferring the land title. The Supreme Court denied NPC's petition, upholding that compensation payment alone does not necessitate title transfer under jurisprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    National Power Corporation v. Maruhom (G.R.No. 183297)

    Uploaded by

    JP Murao III
    80 views1 page
    The NPC constructed underground tunnels through a private land owned by Maruhom and others without their consent in 1978. In 1992, the landowners discovered the tunnels and demanded NPC vacate and pay damages. The RTC ordered NPC to pay fair market value and monthly rentals but did not transfer land ownership. The landowners received compensation but later argued the RTC decision was misunderstood. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling, denying NPC's petition that payment of compensation required transferring the land title. The Supreme Court denied NPC's petition, upholding that compensation payment alone does not necessitate title transfer under jurisprudence.

    Original Title

    NPC v. Maruhom

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The NPC constructed underground tunnels through a private land owned by Maruhom and others without their consent in 1978. In 1992, the landowners discovered the tunnels and demanded NPC vacate and pay damages. The RTC ordered NPC to pay fair market value and monthly rentals but did not transfer land ownership. The landowners received compensation but later argued the RTC decision was misunderstood. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling, denying NPC's petition that payment of compensation required transferring the land title. The Supreme Court denied NPC's petition, upholding that compensation payment alone does not necessitate title transfer under jurisprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    80 views1 page

    National Power Corporation v. Maruhom (G.R.No. 183297)

    Uploaded by

    JP Murao III
    The NPC constructed underground tunnels through a private land owned by Maruhom and others without their consent in 1978. In 1992, the landowners discovered the tunnels and demanded NPC vacate and pay damages. The RTC ordered NPC to pay fair market value and monthly rentals but did not transfer land ownership. The landowners received compensation but later argued the RTC decision was misunderstood. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling, denying NPC's petition that payment of compensation required transferring the land title. The Supreme Court denied NPC's petition, upholding that compensation payment alone does not necessitate title transfer under jurisprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    MURAO, JOSE PEPITO III

    I. Article III Section 9, Elements of Taking:

    National Power Corporation v. Maruhom (G.R.No. 183297)


    Facts:
    Omar Maruhom and fourteen other co-heirs were owners of a 70,000 square meter lot in Marawi City. In 1978,
    without the knowledge and consent of Maruhom et al. National Power Corporation (NPC) took possession of their
    land and constructed underground tunnels for collection of water of Lake Lanao. Herein respondents Maruhoms and
    Ibrahims only discovered such tunnels in July of 1992. Thus, respondents demanded that NPC vacate the
    subterranean portion of the land and pay damages but the NPC did not relent. The respondents then instituted an
    action for recovery of possession of land and damages with the RTC of Lanao del Sur.
    The RTC of Lanao del Sur denied the Maruhoms’ and Ibrahims’ petition to dismantle the underground tunnels
    beneath the respondents’ land but ordered the NPC to pay for the fair market value of the 70,000 square meter land
    as well as a monthly rental fee of 0.68 pesos per square meter from 1978 to present that amounts to more than 7
    million pesos. Both parties appealed but the decision of RTC was executed pending the appeals and the respondents
    received compensation.
    Two years after instituting the action for recovery and subsequently gaining somewhat of a favorable decision, the
    respondents filed a petition for relief of judgment as ‘they believed in good faith that the RTC decision was only for
    damages, rentals, and attorneys fees’ therefore, they did not file a motion for reconsideration within 15 days. They
    only learned on August 26, 1996 that the RTC monetary awards would make NPC the owners of the land.
    Respondents argue that they were prevented by fraud, mistake, accident, or excusable negligence from taking legal
    steps to ensure their rights over their land. The RTC granted the petition of respondents Maruhoms and Ibrahims
    leaving them with just 4,878, 500 pesos for the fair market value from 48,005,000 originally awarded.
    The Court of Appeals merely modified the RTC decision by deleting the award for moral damages and reducing
    awards for rentals and attorneys fees. Upon a petition for certiorari as well as for the issuance of a TRO against the
    implementation of the writ of execution, the NPC issued such TRO. However, the CA dismissed the NPC’s petition
    for certiorari. The CA ruled that in a plethora of cases involving lands traversed by the NPC’s transmission lines, it
    has been consistently held that compensation has been given by the full value of property despite the fact that NPC
    was only after a right-of-way easement.

    Issue: W/N CA erred in its decision of letting respondents keep title to their land even though the respondents have
    already received ‘just compensation’ from the NPC?
    NO. Writ of execution in a decision must strictly be executed. In this case, the original RTC decision affirmed with
    modifications by the CA did not order transfer of ownership. Jurisprudence dictate that there is no basis for the
    NPC’s claim that payment of fair market value necessitate transfer of title.

    Held: Petition is DENIED.


     
     

    You might also like