Title
National Power Corp. vs. Ibrahim
Case
G.R. No. 168732
Decision Date
Jun 29, 2007
Respondents discovered NAPOCOR's unauthorized underground tunnels on their land in 1992, restricting use. SC upheld their right to just compensation, valuing land at P1,000/sq.m. based on fair market value.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 8231)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Subject Matter
    • In November 1994, Lucman G. Ibrahim and co-heirs sued the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) before the RTC of Lanao del Sur for recovery of possession and damages concerning 70,000 square meters of land (Lots 1, 2, 3 of Survey Plan FP (VII-5) 2278).
    • They alleged that in 1978, NAPOCOR clandestinely constructed underground tunnels beneath their land for its hydroelectric projects without consent; discovery occurred in July–November 1992.
  • Proceedings Below
    • RTC Decision (Aug 7, 1996): denied dismantling, awarded just compensation of ₱48,005,000, back rentals of ₱7,050,974.40, moral damages of ₱200,000, and attorney’s fees of ₱200,000.
    • Execution pending appeal was granted; NAPOCOR’s attempted appeals and motions for reconsideration were denied for being out of time or withdrawn.
    • Respondents petitioned for relief from judgment (Oct 1996); RTC modified award (Sept 8, 1997) reducing just compensation and rentals.
    • Both sides appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). CA (June 8, 2005) set aside the modified judgment, restored the original award with deletion of moral damages and reduction of rentals to ₱6,888,757.40 and attorney’s fees to ₱50,000.
    • NAPOCOR filed a Rule 45 petition for review in the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Entitlement to Compensation
    • Did NAPOCOR’s use of the sub-terrain area constitute a “taking” requiring just compensation?
    • Were respondents deprived of beneficial enjoyment of their land, including subsoil rights under Article 437, Civil Code?
  • Basis and Computation of Compensation
    • Should valuation be based on the date of tunnel construction (1978) or on the date of discovery and confirmation of taking (1992)?
    • Was the award of ₱1,000 per square meter, derived from adjacent Lot 1, a proper measure of fair market value?
    • Were back rentals and attorney’s fees correctly computed and awarded?
  • Procedural and Review Issues
    • Whether creation of an easement without expropriation proceedings violated respondents’ due process and property rights.
    • Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in its factual findings on ownership, valuation, and damages.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.