GR 168732; (June, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168732 , June 29, 2007
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. LUCMAN G. IBRAHIM, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, heirs and owners of parcels of land in Marawi City, filed an action for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR). They alleged that in 1978, NAPOCOR, without their knowledge or consent, constructed underground tunnels beneath their properties to siphon water from Lake Lanao for its hydroelectric projects. The existence of these tunnels was only discovered in 1992. Respondents demanded that NAPOCOR vacate and pay damages, claiming the tunnels endangered their lives and properties, and caused them anxiety.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the prayer to dismantle the tunnels but ordered NAPOCOR to pay the fair market value of the land, rentals, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the award for rentals, holding that the payment of just compensation for the land effectively made NAPOCOR the owner, precluding an additional claim for rent. NAPOCOR elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision ordering NAPOCOR to pay just compensation for the subterranean portions taken, and in deleting the award for rentals.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that the construction of permanent underground tunnels constituted a taking of a portion of the respondents’ property, specifically a subterranean easement. The owner of a piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it. By permanently occupying the sub-terrain area, NAPOCOR effectively deprived the owners of its use and disposed of a portion of the property.
This act of taking for public use obligates the government, through NAPOCOR, to pay just compensation as mandated by the Constitution. The payment is not for rent but for the fair market value of the property interest taken. Since the tunnels are permanent structures integral to a government infrastructure project, the proper remedy is expropriation, and the compensation effectively transfers ownership of the affected subterranean portion. Consequently, an award for rentals on the same property is improper, as the owner cannot be paid both for the value of the land taken and for its continued use thereafter. The CA correctly upheld the determination of just compensation based on the commissioners’ report and deleted the rental award.