Case Digest (G.R. No. 11647)
Facts:
Rafael C. de Ynchausti v. The Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, The Government of the Philippine Islands and The Provincial Government of Rizal, G.R. No. 11647, September 26, 1917, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carson, J., writing for the Court.
Early in 1912 the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company was authorized by the Director of Public Works, acting for the Government of the Philippine Islands and the Province of Rizal, to construct an electric railroad along the provincial highway from Manila to Paranaque, the Director designating the precise location and requiring the company to lay its track along the side of the road. The track was completed toward the end of 1912.
A dispute later arose over the width of the ancient highway: the plaintiff claimed that the highway was narrower than the Director asserted and that the railroad had encroached upon his private land, occupying a strip some 200 meters long and 3 meters wide. The plaintiff alleged that his predecessor held registered title to the strip under the Land Registration Act and sued for recovery of possession and damages of P1,000.
At trial it was substantially admitted that the plaintiff’s predecessor owned the strip at the time the track was laid and that no proof sustained an affirmative finding as to the true width of the old highway. The trial judge denied recovery of possession but, believing the plaintiff entitled to recover the value of the land, entered judgment for an amount equal to its assessed value. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court; the railroad had been shown to possess statutory powers to condemn lands for its use and was expressly authorized...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether a landowner may recover possession of land occupied by a railroad corporation that was authorized by law to condemn lands, when the occupation was in good faith under a mistaken belief the land was public highway.
- Whether the trial court could lawfully enter judgment for the assessed value of the land where the plaintiff did not plead or introduce...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)