G.R. No. 109338; November 20, 2000
CAMARINES NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (CANORECO), petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. LUIS L. DICTADO, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 39, Daet, Camarines Norte, EDUARDO R. MORENO, LT. COL. RUFINO CHAVEZ, CAPT. ALFREDO BORJA, CONRAD C. LEVISTE and VINES REALTY CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for collection and foreclosure of mortgage filed by Conrad Leviste against Philippine Smelter Corporation (PSC). The trial court rendered a decision in favor of Leviste, and upon finality, a writ of execution was issued. Two parcels of land owned by PSC were levied and sold at public auction to Vines Realty Corporation. The trial court subsequently issued a writ of possession and, upon Vines Realty’s motion, an order and writ of demolition directing the removal of all improvements on the property. Among these improvements were power lines and electric posts owned by petitioner CANORECO, which were not a party to the original foreclosure case. CANORECO opposed the demolition, asserting it was not bound by the judgment and had subsisting right-of-way agreements over the property.
Despite CANORECO’s opposition and its counsel’s withdrawal during a hearing, the trial court proceeded and ordered the demolition. CANORECO filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which issued a restraining order. However, the trial court subsequently issued an alias writ of demolition addressed to a sheriff not named in the CA petition, and Vines Realty proceeded to cut down CANORECO’s electric posts. The Court of Appeals later dismissed CANORECO’s petition, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the demolition of CANORECO’s power lines and posts, despite CANORECO not being a party to the case and claiming a right-of-way easement.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and nullified the demolition orders. The core legal principle is that an easement of right-of-way is a real right and constitutes a legal limitation on the ownership of the land. When Vines Realty purchased the property at the foreclosure sale, it acquired the land subject to all existing encumbrances and liens, including CANORECO’s easement. The trial court’s demolition order effectively sought to extinguish this real right without due process, as CANORECO was never impleaded as a party to the foreclosure case. A judgment cannot bind a person not a party to the action.
The proper remedy for Vines Realty, if it wished to dispute the easement, was to file a separate civil action against CANORECO, not to seek its destruction through a writ of demolition in a case to which it was not a party. The trial court’s act of ordering the demolition of the improvements of a non-party, without jurisdiction over it and without affording it a proper hearing, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power of eminent domain, which includes the acquisition of such easements, is vested in the State and its agencies, and a private entity like Vines Realty cannot unilaterally cause its termination through a writ of execution.