|Vargas Case Digests|

National power corporation v. spouses campos jr.

Facts and Controversy

In 1996, respondents filed with court a quo action for a sum of money and damages and petitioner, stating
that they are owners of a parcel of land found in Bo. San Agustin Dasmariñas, Cavite, consisting of 66, 819
sq. m. In 1970, Dr. Campos (President of Cavite Electric Cooperative) requested that the respondents grant
the petitioner right-of-way over a portion of the subject property. This was for the purpose of installing wooden
electric posts and transmission lines. Respondents agreed on the condition that it would be temporary.
Petitioner assured that it would be temporary and the posts would be relocated as soon as the permanent
posts and transmission lines have been installed; however, petitioner kept using the property without
compensating petitioners.

In 1994, NPC agents trespassed property and conducted engineering surveys. The caretaker asked them to
leave. 1995, Mr. Raz claiming to be an NPC agent asked Jose Campos Jr. for permission to enter property
and conduct survey to erect an all-steel transmission line tower on a 24-square meter area. Refused to grant
permission, wanted to talk to Chief of Calaca Sub-station. Later in 1995, petitioners trespassed again and
presented a letter of authority allegedly written by Campos Jr. Caretaker demanded that letter be given for
verification, but agents refused. Caretaker ordered them to leave.

December 12, 1995, petitioner instituted an expropriation case involving the property since in was selected
for being compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury, trying to negotiate with
respondents for acquisition but failed to reach an amicable settlement.

Respondents state that there were more suitable or appropriate sites for the transmission lines and petitioner
chose property on a whimsical and capricious manner. It was not the least injurious since petitioner could be
revised to avoid traversing the subject property. Denied negotiating with petitioner on acquisition of subject
property. Being unaware of intention to expropriate, respondents sold it to Solar Resources Inc. and so
respondents stand to lose a substantial amount of money derived from proceeds of sale.

Petitioner contention: It already acquired easement of right-of-way over portion of the subject property by
prescription because the easement had been continuous and apparent for a period of 23 years (1970-1994).
Further invokes section 3(i) of the NPC charter asserting that respondents already waived their right to institute
any action for compensation.

RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Campos. CA affirmed decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner’s possession of property will create an easement of right-of-way by
prescription.

Decision of the Supreme Court

Ruling on Contention #1 – Untenable; bereft of merit. Prescription as a mode of acquisition requires the
existence of: (1) capacity to acquire by prescription, (2) a thing capable of acquisition by prescription, (3)
possession of the thing under certain conditions, and (4) lapse of time provided by law. It may be ordinary
(possession must be in good faith with just title) or extraordinary (neither good faith nor just title). Either case
requires a possession that must be in the concept of an owner. Application: Petitioner’s possession of the
subject property was merely upon tolerance of spouses Campos. This permissive use will not create an
easement of right-of-way by prescription, such as in the case of Cuaycong v. Benedicto (road connected
to public road in hacienda of defendants where defendants closed road and refused payment unless a toll
was paid. Rejected plaintiff’s contention that they acquired a right-of-way by prescription. Possession is the
fundamental basis of prescription). Petitioner never acquired possession in this case.

It also cannot invoke Section 3(i) of its charter (RA 6395) to put up defense of prescription against the
respondents. Two requisites are needed: (1) petitioner entered upon the private property in lawful
performance or prosecution of its businesses or purposes, and (2) owner of private property shall be paid the
just compensation. THIS PRESUMES THAT PETITIONER HAS ALREADY TAKEN PROPERTY THROUGH A NEGOTIATED
SALE OR EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN. This case only shows that the petitioner was merely
allowed to erect the posts and lines on the subject property. The five-year period under Section 3(i) of RA
6395 where all claims for compensation/damages may be allowed against petitioner should be reckoned
from the time it acquired title over property on which right-of-way is sought to be established. Prior to, the
compensation/damages do not prescribe. Petitioner only instituted expropriation proceedings on Dec. 12,
1995, and they never acquired title to the said portion of subject property. Thus, there is no application of
prescription to the case.