Case Digest (G.R. No. 183297)
Facts:
National Power Corporation v. Omar G. Maruhom et al., G.R. No. 183297, December 23, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Respondents (the Ibrahim/Maruhom heirs) own a 70,000-square-meter lot in Saduc, Marawi City. In 1978 NPC, without respondents’ knowledge or consent, took possession of the subterranean portion of the lot and built underground tunnels used in NPC’s Agus projects. Respondents discovered the tunnels in July 1992 and on October 7, 1992 demanded that NPC vacate and pay damages; NPC did not comply.
On November 23, 1994 respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Sur Civil Case No. 1298-94 for recovery of possession and damages. The RTC rendered a decision (decretal portion dated August 7, 1996) denying dismantling of tunnels but ordering NPC to pay fair market value for 48,005 sq.m. (P48,005,000.00), monthly rentals, moral damages, attorney’s fees and costs. NPC filed a notice of appeal but later withdrew it to pursue a motion for reconsideration; the RTC granted execution pending appeal on August 28, 1996 and the judgment was executed pending appeal, leading to garnishment of NPC funds.
On October 4, 1996 Lucman Ibrahim and certain respondents filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment. The RTC granted that petition and rendered a modified judgment on September 8, 1997 reducing the award and altering amounts subject to execution. Both Lucman Ibrahim and NPC separately appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 57792. On June 8, 2005 the CA set aside the modified judgment and restored the RTC’s original August 7, 1996 decision with certain monetary modifications. This Court affirmed the CA on June 29, 2007 in G.R. No. 168732; a motion for reconsideration was denied August 29, 2007.
To satisfy the affirmed judgment respondents moved for execution before the RTC. On November 13, 2007 the RTC granted the motion and issued a writ of execution; a notice of garnishment followed. NPC filed a Petition for Certiorari (with TRO/Preliminary Injunction) in the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 02065-MIN), arguing that the writ of execution varied the final judgment by allowing payment of just compensation without the concomitant transfer of title. The CA issued a TRO on November 29, 2007 enjoining execution, but on May 30, 2008 dismissed NPC’s certiorari petition and ordered NPC to pay P36,219,887.20.
NPC filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to nullify the CA’s May 30, 2008 decision and sought a TRO from the Suprem...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing NPC’s petition for certiorari challenging the RTC’s issuance of the writ of execution and notice of garnishment — i.e., was there grave abuse of discretion?
- Does the payment of just compensation for an easement (right-of-way) necessarily require the concomitant transfer of title to the expropriator, and does payment of full market value without tran...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)