Case Digest (G.R. No. 172077)
Facts:
Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Cooperative, Inc. v. Edmundo O. Obias et al., G.R. No. 172077, October 09, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.
In 1972 the Bicol Sugar Development Corporation (BISUDECO) built a roughly 7-meter-wide, 2.9-kilometer road at Himaao, Pili, Camarines Sur to haul sugarcane to its mill (Pensumil). In October 1992 petitioner Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Cooperative, Inc. (BAPCI) acquired BISUDECO’s assets. In March–April 1993 BAPCI sued respondents — led by Edmundo O. Obias and several co-defendants — alleging that respondents unlawfully barricaded the disputed road, obstructing BAPCI’s hauling operations and causing damage. BAPCI pleaded that BISUDECO had constructed the road pursuant to an agreement with the landowners (employment in exchange for construction), and alternatively invoked Article 649 of the New Civil Code for a compulsory easement should title not be established.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, Pili, issued a temporary restraining order and later (July 21, 1993) a writ of preliminary injunction. After trial the RTC (June 25, 1997) declared the preliminary injunction permanent, held that BAPCI failed to prove the alleged agreement or acquisitive prescription, but awarded BAPCI a compulsory easement under Article 649 upon payment of specified indemnities to owners of the servient estates; the RTC also set indemnity amounts and stated that upon full payment BAPCI would be declared absolute owner of the road. Both parties moved for reconsideration; the RTC denied the motions (Sept. 24, 1997).
BAPCI and other intervening cooperatives appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59016. The CA (Aug. 24, 2005) affirmed much of the RTC’s findings: it agreed there was no conclusive proof of the alleged agreement and that a right of way is a discontinuous easement not acquirable by prescription; it sustained the grant of a compulsory easement but reversed the RTC’s declaration that BAPCI would become absolute owner upon payment, holding instead that respondents retain ownership of the servient estates. The CA also deleted indemnity awards to two persons for procedural reasons. Motions for reconsideration to the CA were denied (Resolution, Mar. 28, 2006).
BAPCI filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the CA Decision and Resolution. Although denominated as a Rule 65 petition, the petition attacked the CA’s final judgment; the Court therefore tre...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition properly filed under Rule 65 or should it be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45?
- Did petitioner prove the existence of an agreement between BISUDECO and respondents that would establish a voluntary easement/right of way?
- Can an easement of right of way be acquired by prescription, laches, or estoppel in this case?
- Was the road in dispute properly classified as a barangay (public) road?
- Was the amount and method of computing indemnity for the compulsory easement (Article 649) erroneous, and is petitioner entitled to valuation ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)