After 14 years of legal journey from the lowest court to the highest court of the land, a Naga City couple will have to go back to where they initiated their first step in 2006.
The Supreme Court (SC) said the couple’s recourse in the dismissed unlawful detainer (recovery of possession or ejectment) case they filed against the National Power Corporation (Napocor) involving their land is to file a petition for just compensation before the trial court.It said an unlawful detainer case filed by a landowner against a public corporation, which has the power of eminent domain (inherent right of the State to expropriate property for public use), will not prosper.
The SC decision, written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro Javier, granted the petition of Napocor, now the National Transmission Company (Transco), against the adverse rulings of the municipal trial court in cities (MTCC), regional trial court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA).
The ejectment case was filed by spouses Rufo and Tomasa Llorin on Oct. 27, 2006; the MTCC decision in their favor was dated June 19, 2007; the RTC and the CA decisions upholding MTCC’s rulings were dated Dec. 7, 2007 and June 27, 2008, respectively.
Based on the CA’s Jan. 12, 2011 denial of the motion for reconsideration of Napocor, now Transco – which is wholly owned by the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM Corp.) under Republic Act No 9136, the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) of 2001 -- the defunct agency elevated the issued to the SC.
The SC decision was handed down on Jan. 13, 2021 and was posted on its website on Feb. 9, 2021 – or more than nine years from the date of the last CA ruling.
Associate Justice Javier assumed her SC post only on March 7, 2019. She must have “inherited” the Napocor case from magistrates who retired prior to her appointment.
Spouses Llorin alleged in their 2006 MTCC case that they are the registered owners of 102,606 square meters of land in San Felipe, Naga City.
They said that in 1978, Napocor occupied the property and started the construction and installation of 69-KV Naga-Tinambac power transmission lines on their 10,500 square meters of land without the consent of their predecessors-in-interest.
But they said their predecessors-in-interest had an assurance from Napocor that the structures would be temporary, the property would be vacated when the owners would need it, and that monthly rentals would be paid.
They said that they when demanded the return of the property and payment of rentals, Napocor continuously failed and refused to heed their demand.
On Aug. 30, 2006, they said they served their last formal demand to no avail. Then, they said, they filed a case with MTCC for unlawful detainer on Oct. 27, 2006.
Napocor sought the dismissal of the complaint pointing out, among other things, that the transmission assets had been transferred to Transco under RA 9136, and due to prescription and laches (a defense against a complainant who has neglected to enforce his or her rights for an unreasonable length of time).
The MTCC, in its decision, directed Napocor to vacate the property and to turn it over to spouses Llorin, pay P5,000 monthly rental from September 2006 until the property is vacated, and pay P20,000 in attorney’s fees.
The ruling was affirmed in full by the RTC and later by the CA on petitions filed by Napocor.
The CA ruled that the allegations in case filed by spouses Llorin were sufficient for unlawful detainer to proper, and that the recovery of the properly cannot be defeated by laches or prescription.
On Napocor’s petition, the SC – citing jurisprudence -- ruled:
“… for reasons of public policy and public necessity, as well as equitable estoppel, the remedy of unlawful detainer is unavailing to compel a public utility to vacate subject property. The proper recourse is for the ejectment court (1) to dismiss the case without prejudice to the landowner filing the proper action for recovery of just compensation and consequential damages; or (2) to dismiss the case and direct the public utility corporation to institute the proper expropriation or condemnation proceedings and to pay the just compensation and consequential damages assessed therein; or (3) to continue with the case as if it were an expropriation case and determine the just compensation and consequential damages pursuant to Rule 67 (Expropriation) of the Rules of Court, if the ejectment court has jurisdiction over the value of the subject land.
“Thus, it is well- settled that a case filed by a landowner for recovery of possession or ejectment against a public utility corporation, endowed with the power of eminent domain, which has occupied the land belonging to the former in the interest of public service without prior acquisition of title thereto by negotiated purchase or expropriation proceedings, will not prosper.”
The SC said the MTCC should have dismissed the case for unlawful detainer “without prejudice to the landowner's filing of the proper action for just compensation and consequential damages.”
It added that the trial court should have, alternatively, “directed the Napocor (Transco) to initiate the proper expropriation proceedings and to pay just compensation and consequential damages.”
It noted the “considerable length of time that elapsed before Spouses Llorin or their predecessors-in-interest questioned the government's so called unconsented entry into the property and installation of the 69-KV Naga-Tinambac power transmission lines, sans (without) expropriation proceedings, constitutes a waiver of their right to gain back its possession.”
But the SC said “the remedy left for them is to claim for just compensation.”
Trial courts have the original jurisdiction over just compensation cases.