GR 43622; (December, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 43622, December 13, 1938
LOPEZ SUGAR CENTRAL MILL CO., INC. vs. MAGDALENA GONZAGA VIUDA DE CUAYCONG, ET AL.
FACTS
Plaintiff Lopez Sugar Central Mill Co., Inc. operates a sugar central and a railroad system to transport cane from haciendas bound to it by milling contracts. One such hacienda is Hacienda Magdalena, owned by defendants. Due to increased output and number of bound haciendas, plaintiff needed to extend its main railroad line onto a portion of Hacienda Magdalena to maneuver loaded cars into its railroad yard. Defendants refused to grant the land gratuitously. Plaintiff filed an action, invoking a right of way under the milling contract, and obtained a preliminary injunction to proceed with construction. Defendants countered, alleging the land was for a widening of the railroad yard (not a right of way) and that plaintiff took 68 rails and 800 cubic meters of earth from their land without compensation.
ISSUE
1. Whether plaintiff has a right to use the land as a right of way for its railroad extension under the milling contract, or if it constitutes an unauthorized widening of its railroad yard.
2. Whether plaintiff must indemnify defendants for the taken rails and earth, and if so, the amount.
RULING
1. Yes, plaintiff has a right of way. The court ruled the land use was an extension of the main railroad line, not a yard widening. Under paragraph 6 of the milling contract, planters must provide land gratuitously for railroad rights of way. The extension was necessary for operational efficiency, allowing cars to be pushed backward into the yard after leaving the main line. The definition of a “yard” requires trains to leave the main track to enter it, which is what the extended line facilitated.
2. Yes, plaintiff must indemnify defendants. Plaintiff admitted taking 68 rails and 800 cubic meters of earth without consent. Defendants are entitled to compensation: P450 for the rails (based on depreciated value) and P800 as reasonable compensation for the earth. The counterclaim for damages from the preliminary injunction was dismissed for lack of proof.
The appealed judgment was affirmed with the added indemnity.
AI Generated by Armztrong.