10 heirs of vs napocor

7/26/2019 10 Heirs of vs Napocor

1/8

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 141447 May 4, 2006

HEIRS OF MACABANGKIT SANGKAY, namey, CEB! BATO"A#AN, SAYANA, NASSER, MANTA, E$GAR, %!TRI,

MONKOY an& AMIR, a '()name& MACABANGKIT,Petitioners,vs.NATIONA* %O"ER COR%ORATION, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CA**E+O, SR.,J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Deision!of the Court of "ppea#s $C"% in C"&'.R. SP No. ()**+ whih

set aside the Speia# Orderdated Septe-er /, !+++ issued 0 the Re1iona# Tria# Court $RTC% of I#i1an Cit0, Branh 2! in Civi# CaseNo. )3+), as we## as the Reso#ution dated Nove-er !, !+++ den0in1 the -otion for reonsideration thereof. The said Speia# Order

of the RTC 1ranted the 4r1ent 5otion for E6eution Pendin1 "ppea# fi#ed 0 p#aintiffs therein of its Deision and Supp#e-enta#

Deision, thus o#i1in1 the Nationa# Power Corporation $N"POCOR% to pa0 p#aintiffs P/+,)/./(3.33 as 7ust o-pensation.

The anteedents are as fo##ows8

5aaan19it San19a0 was the owner of a /,32(&s:uare&-eter pare# of #and #oated in I#i1an Cit0. ;hen he died intestate, thepropert0 was sudivided into nine pare#s and suse:uent#0 tit#ed to his heirs, na-e#08

Na-e Tit#e No.

!% Ed1ar 5aaan19it & OCT No. P&!33s under1round tunne#, op0 of the #etter of the said Ban9, dated Otoer !3, !++2 is herewith attahed and -ar9ed asANNE -Y,-for-in1 as part hereof?

!3. That the at of defendant is e:uiva#ent to un#awfu# ta9in1 and onde-nation of p#aintiffs> pare#s of #and, without 7ust

o-pensation andAor reasona#e renta# sine !+/+. ;ritten and ora# de-ands were -ade for defendant to vaate and re-ove its tunne#

or, in the a#ternative, to pa0 7ust o-pensation and renta# of p#aintiffs> pare#s of #and, ut defendant refused and ontinuous#0 refuses,

sans an0 va#id 1round. Cop0 of p#aintiffs> de-and #etter is attahed herewith as "NNE for-in1 as part hereof. "#so, the answer

of defendant to p#aintiffs> de-and #etter is a#so attahed herewith and -ar9ed as ANNE -#1,-for-in1 as part hereof?

!!. That, as a onse:uene of defendant>s un#awfu# ta9in1 and onde-nation of p#aintiffs> properties and the i##e1a# onstrution of

defendant>s under1round tunne#, the defendant were deprived of the a1riu#tura#, o--eria#, industria# and residentia# va#ue of their

#and aforesaid?

So a#so, 0 the sa-e reason aforestated, the surfae of p#aintiffs> #and ea-e unsafe for haitation as the defendant>s tunne# wi##so-eda0 o##apse, and the surfae wi## e arried 0 the urrent of the water. Those of p#aintiffs and wor9ers with houses on the

surfae were fored to transfer to a safer site in !++2, as the0 were ontinuous#0 distur da0 and ni1ht, eause of fear and the dan1er,

oup#ed 0 the sound ein1 produe 0 the water f#ow and whih so-eti-e sha9e the surfae?

!. That the urrent a11re1ate assessed va#ue of p#aintiffs, pare#s of #and as indiated in their respetive Ta6 De#arations is ONE=4NDRED SI T=O4S"ND "ND SEVEN =4NDRED TEN $P!32,/!3.33% PESOS, -ore or #ess?

!s

under1round tunne# was onstruted up to the present, p#us additiona# da-a1es e0ond !++/, shou#d defendant ontinue to i##e1a##0

sta0 on p#aintiffs> #and, in suh a-ount as -a0 e deter-ined and dee-ed 7ust and e:uita#e 0 the =onora#e Court?

!). That it is neessar0 for defendant to dis-ant#e its under1round tunne# i##e1a##0 onstruted eneath the #ands of p#aintiffs and to

de#iver possession of the sa-e to p#aintiff the suterrain i##e1a##0 oupied 0 defendant?

!(. The onstrution of the tunne# 0 defendant eneath p#aintiffs> pare#s of #ands have aused dan1er to their #ives and properties?

s#eep#ess ni1hts, serious an6iet0, and sho9, there0 entit#in1 the- to reover -ora# da-a1es in the a-ount of T;O =4NDRED

T=OS4"ND $P33,333.33% PESOS. "nd 0 wa0 of e6a-p#e to deter persons si-i#ar#0 -inded and for pu#i 1ood, defendant -a0

e he#d #ia#e for e6e-p#ar0 da-a1es, a#so in the a-ount of T;O =4NDRED T=O4S"ND $P33,333.33% PESOS. Or in oth ases,in suh a-ount as -a0 e deter-ined 0 the =onora#e Court?

!2. That to protet the interest of the p#aintiffs and for purposes of fi#in1 the instant ase, the0 were o-pe##ed to en1a1e the servies

of ounse#, in the a-ount e:uiva#ent to T;O =4NDRED T=O4S"ND $P33,333.33%, p#us ourt appearane fee of ONE

T=O4S"ND $P!,333.33%, as and 0 wa0 of attorne0>s fees.2

The0 pra0ed that 7ud1-ent e rendered in their favor after due proeedin1s, to wit8

;=EREFORE, pre-ises onsidered, p#aintiffs pra0 that 7ud1-ent e rendered as fo##ows8

!. Diretin1 defendants to re-ove and dis-ant#e its under1round tunne# onstruted eneath the #and of p#aintiffs and tode#iver possession of the suterrain area i##e1a##0 oupied 0 defendant?

. To pa0 p#aintiffs a -onth#0 renta# fro- !+/+ up to the ti-e the defendant vaates the suterrain of the #and of p#aintiffs, insuh a-ount as -a0 e onsidered reasona#e 0 the =onora#e Court?

s under1round tunne# is not #e1a##0 possi#e, to pa0 p#aintiffs of the

7ust o-pensation of their #and in the a-ount as -a0 e dee-ed reasona#e 0 the =onora#e Court. But, in either ase,$either 0 the re-ova# of the tunne# or 0 pa0in1 7ust o-pensation% to pa0 p#aintiffs a reasona#e renta#?

). To pa0 -ora# da-a1es in the a-ount of T;O =4NDRED T=O4S"ND $P33,33.33% PESOS and e6e-p#ar0 da-a1es of

another T;O =4NDRED T=O4S"ND $P33,333.33% PESOS, or in suh respetive a-ount as -a0 e deter-ined 0 the

=onora#e Court?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt6


3/8

(. Pa0 attorne0>s fees in the a-ount of T;O =4NDRED T=O4S"ND $P33,333.33%, p#us appearane fee of ONE

T=O4S"ND $P!,3333.33% PESOS, as and 0 wa0 of attorne0>s fees?

2. Suh other re#ief dee-ed 7ust and e:uita#e under the iru-stane./

In its answer to the o-p#aint, N"POCOR interposed the fo##owin1 speia# and affir-ative defenses8

2. That whi#e it is true that under "rti#e )s Offie statin1 that the propert0 had an assessed va#ue of

P)33.33 to P(33.33 per s:uare -eter. ;itnesses testified that the ad7aent pare#s of #and were so#d at P/33.33 and P/(3.33 per s:uare

-eter and that the area where the propert0 is #oated is #assified as industria#, and residentia# and ad7aent to sudivisions with

industria# #assifiation.+

On "u1ust !s tunne# is denied. =owever, defendant is here0 direted and

ordered8

a% To pa0 p#aintiffs> #and with a tota# area of /,32( s:uare -eters, at the rate of FIVE =4NDRED $P(33.33%

PESOS per s:uare -eter, or a tota# of ONE =4NDRED T=IRTEEN 5IHHION FIVE =4NDRED T=IRT T;OT=O4S"ND "ND FIVE =4NDRED $P!!


4/8

On "u1ust !*, !+++, the RTC rendered a Supp#e-enta# Deision, the dispositive portion of whih reads8

Therefore, para1raph !$a% of the dispositive portion of the ori1ina# deision shou#d read, as fo##ows8

a% To pa0 p#aintiffs> #and with a tota# area of /,32( s:uare -eters, at the rate of FIVE =4NDRED $P(33.33% PESOS per s:uare

-eter, or a tota# of ONE =4NDRED T=IRTEEN 5IHHION FIVE =4NDRED T=IRT T;O T=O4S"ND "ND FIVE =4NDRED$P!!s findin1 that it $N"POCOR% had ated in ad

faith in onstrutin1 the tunne#. The0 pointed out that it had een i##e1a##0 oup0in1 their #and for a #on1 period of ti-e without an0o-pensation or renta# havin1 een paid to the-, and that to pro#on1 the e6eution of the deision wou#d #i9ewise pro#on1 its i##e1a#

at. The =eirs pointed out that one the0 reeived their share of the -one0 7ud1-ent, the0 wou#d e a#e to purhase safer #ands and

ui#d new houses thereon. The0 insisted that an0 appea# whih -a0 e ta9en 0 N"POCOR wou#d e di#ator0 and frivo#ous.

The =eirs appended to their -otion their @oint "ffidavit wherein the0 a##e1ed that the0 onstant#0 feared that an earth:ua9e ou#dhappen at an0 ti-e, and that the tunne# ou#d o##apse or ave in, whih wou#d neessari#0 ause serious in7uries or even death.!

N"POCOR opposed the -otion. It ontended that the =eirs fai#ed to prove that it ated in ad faith when it onstruted the tunne#?

hene, there was no 7ustifiation to 1rant their -otion. It pointed out that the =eirs were never deprived of the enefiia# use of their

#and? in fat, there was no evidene on reord that the0 ever atte-pted to use the affeted portion of the propert0. N"POCOR #ai-ed

that the =eirs> de-and for renta#s was without fatua# and #e1a# asis.

N"POCOR further a##e1ed that the =eirs> #ai- that the tunne# e6posed the- to dan1er was e#ied 0 the testi-on0 of Nasser5aaan19it. On ross&e6a-ination, he testified that on#0 two of his si#in1s, Sa0ana and Ed1ar 5aaan19it, starter to reside in the

su7et propert0 in !++*, after the o-p#aint was fi#ed on Nove-er !, !+*/. It further a##e1ed that it had a#read0 fi#ed an appea#,

whih, as 1#eaned fro- the evidene and the app#ia#e 7urisprudene, was not a -ere di#ator0 tati.!S use of the #and. It a#so

ru#ed that the =eirs ou#d fi#e their -otion for e6eution pendin1 appea# even efore N"POCOR reeived a op0 of the deision.!(

The RTC thereafter issued the ;rit of E6eution!2on Septe-er +, !+++.

N"POCOR assai#ed the tria# ourt>s Speia# Order and ;rit of E6eution efore the C" via petition for review on ertiorari under

Ru#e 2(, #ai-in1 that respondent @ud1e ated without or in e6ess of 7urisdition and 1rave#0 aused his disretion in 1rantin1 the

5otion for E6eution Pendin1 "ppea# and issuin1 the ono-itant writ despite the asene of o-pe##in1 reasons therefor.!/It ited

Aquino v. Santia1o!*to support its ar1u-ent. It #ai-ed that it was not in dan1er of ein1 inso#vent as wou#d 7ustif0 e6eution of thedeision pendin1 appea#. It further posited that sine Repu#i "t No. 2 -otion for e6eution pendin1 appea# of its deision and supp#e-enta# deision in the a-ount of P/+,)/,/(3.33.

The petition is dis-issed for #a9 of -erit.

The ru#e is that e6eution sha## issue as a -atter of ri1ht, on -otion, upon a 7ud1-ent or order that disposes of the ation orproeedin1s upon the e6piration of the period to appea# therefro- if no appea# has een perfeted.(=owever, the tria# ourt -a0 1rant

e6eution efore the e6piration of the period to appea# upon -otion of the prevai#in1 part0 provided that it has 7urisdition over the

ase and is in possession of either the ori1ina# reord or the reord on appea#, as the ase -a0 e, and there are 1ood reasons for suh
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt25


6/8

e6eution to e stated in a speia# order after due hearin1. The ru#e does not prosrie the prevai#in1 part0 fro- fi#in1 suh -otion

even efore the #osin1 part0 has reeived his op0 of the deision or fina# order of the tria# ourt. Suh -otion for e6eution pendin1

appea# -a0 e fi#ed 0 the prevai#in1 part0 at an0 ti-e efore the e6piration of the period to appea#. It -a0 happen that, upon servieon the prevai#in1 part0 of a op0 of the deision or fina# order of the tria# ourt, he fi#es a -otion for e6eution pendin1 appea# ut the

#osin1 part0 fi#es a -otion for reonsideration of the deision or fina# order within the re:uired !(&da0 period under Ru#e s -otion for reonsideration of the deision or fina# order. 4pon the other hand, if the#osin1 part0 does not appea# the deision or fina# order, the e6eution of the deision eo-es a -atter of ri1ht on the part of the

prevai#in1 part0. In suh ase, the -otion for e6eution pendin1 appea# eo-es -oot and aade-i, as the prevai#in1 part0 -a0 fi#e a

-otion for a writ of e6eution of the deision or fina# order.

"s provided in Setion , Ru#e -otion for e6eution pendin1 appea# in the asene of 1ood reasons to 7ustif0 the

1rant of said -otion.

The Ru#es of Court do not enu-erate the iru-stanes whih wou#d 7ustif0 the e6eution of the 7ud1-ent or deision pendin1

appea#.*

=owever, this Court has he#d that 1ood reasons onsist of o-pe##in1 or superior iru-stanes de-andin1 ur1en0 whihwi## outwei1h the in7ur0 or da-a1es shou#d the #osin1 part0 seure a reversa# of the 7ud1-ent or fina# order. ;ere the ru#e otherwise,e6eution pendin1 appea# -a0 we## eo-e a too# of oppression and ine:uit0 instead of an instru-ent of so#iitude and 7ustie.+

The e6istene of 1ood reasons is what onfers disretionar0 power on a ourt to issue a writ of e6eution pendin1 appea#. These

reasons -ust e stated in the order 1rantin1 the sa-e. 4n#ess the0 are divu#1ed, it wou#d e diffiu#t to deter-ine whether 7udiia#

disretion has een proper#0 e6erised in the ase. The -ere postin1 of a ond wi## not 7ustif0 e6eution pendin1 appea#. Further-ore,a o-ination of iru-stanes is the do-inant onsideration whih i-pe#s the 1rant of i--ediate e6eution. The re:uire-ent of a

ond is i-posed -ere#0 as an additiona# fator for the protetion of the defendant>s reditor? otherwise, e6eution pendin1 appea#

ou#d e otained throu1h the -ere fi#in1 of suh ond.http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_141447_2006.html#fnt31


7/8

On the other hand, in their Co-p#aint fi#ed efore the RTC on Nove-er !!, !++/, petitioners a##e1ed that the onstrution of the

tunne# 0 the respondent aused dan1er to their #ives and properties, and 1ave the- s#eep#ess ni1hts, serious an6iet0 and sho9. The

Court ru#es, however, that this #ai- of petitioners was -ere#0 an afterthou1ht and is arren of -erit.

Petitioner Nasser 5aaan19it testified efore the tria# ourt on Dee-er !, !++*, and de#ared that on#0 two of the petitioners,Ed1ar and Sa0ana 5aaan19it, resided in the propert0 startin1 on#0 in !++*8

L ;as there an0one of 0our rothers and sisters who have atua##0 visitedAresided in this #and in :uestionM

" "s of now, there is, Sir.

L ;i## 0ou te## us the na-e of 0our rother or sister who is now residin1 in this #and of 0oursM

" Ed1ar and Sa0ana 5aaan19it.

L Do 0ou 9now when was it when the0 started residin1 in that #and of 0oursM

" This 0ear, Sir.

CO4RT8

L This 0ear !++*M

" es, our =onor. $TSN, Dee-er !, !++*, pp. !&


8/8

it is not for the tria# 7ud1e to deter-ine the -erit of a deision he rendered as this is the ro#e of the appe##ate ourt. =ene, it is not

within o-petene of the tria# ourt, in reso#vin1 a -otion for e6eution pendin1 appea#, to ru#e that the appea# is patent#0 di#ator0 and

re#0 on the sa-e as asis for findin1 1ood reasons to 1rant the -otion. On#0 an appe##ate ourt an appreiate the di#ator0 intent of anappea# as an additiona# 1ood reason in upho#din1 an order for e6eution pendin1 appea#

Petitioners> re#iane on the ru#in1 of the C" in Nationa# Power Corporation v. Irahi-,

10 heirs of vs napocor

Documents