NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner vs. LUCMAN G. IBRAHIM, OMAR, G. MARUHOM, ELIAS G. MARUHOM, BUCAY G. MARUHOM, FAROUK G.

MARUHOM, HIDJARA G. MARUHOM, ROCANIA G. MARUHOM, POTRISAM G. MARUHOM, LUMBA G. MARUHOM, SINAB G. MARUHOM, ACMAD G. MARUHOM, SOLAYMAN G. MARUHOM G.R. No. 168 !", J#$% "&, "'' Facts: Respondent Lucman G. Ibrahim, in his personal capacity and in behalf of his co-heirs instituted an action against petitioner National Power Corporation N!P"C"R# for reco$ery of possession of land and damages before the Regional %rial Court R%C# of Lanao del &ur. In their complaint, Ibrahim and his co-heirs claimed that they were owners of se$eral parcels of land. &ometime in '()*, N!P"C"R, through alleged stealth and without respondents+ ,nowledge and prior consent, too, possession of the sub-terrain area of their lands and constructed therein underground tunnels. %he e-istence of the tunnels was only disco$ered sometime in .uly '((/ by respondents and then later confirmed on No$ember '0, '((/ by N!P"C"R itself through a memorandum issued by the latter+s !cting !ssistant Pro1ect 2anager. %he tunnels were apparently being used by N!P"C"R in siphoning the water of La,e Lanao and in the operation of N!P"C"R. Respondent "mar G. 2aruhom re3uested the 2arawi City 4ater 5istrict for a permit to construct and6or install a motori7ed deep well in Lot 0 located in &aduc, 2arawi City but his re3uest was turned down because the construction of the deep well would cause danger to li$es and property. "n "ctober ), '((/, respondents demanded that N!P"C"R pay damages and $acate the sub-terrain portion of their lands but the latter refused to $acate much less pay damages. Respondents further a$erred that the construction of the underground tunnels has endangered their li$es and properties as 2arawi City lies in an area of local $olcanic and tectonic acti$ity. 8urther, these illegally constructed tunnels caused them sleepless nights, serious an-iety and shoc, thereby entitling them to reco$er moral damages and that by way of e-ample for the public good, N!P"C"R must be held liable for e-emplary damages. 5isputing respondents+ claim, N!P"C"R filed an answer with counterclaim denying the material allegations of the complaint and interposing affirmati$e and special defenses, namely that '# there is a failure to state a cause of action since respondents see, possession of the subterrain portion when they were ne$er in possession of the same, /# respondents ha$e no cause of action because they failed to show proof that they were the owners of the property, and 0# the tunnels are a go$ernment pro1ect for the benefit of all and all pri$ate lands are sub1ect to such easement as may be necessary for the same. Ibrahim, 1oined by his co-heirs, filed an 9rgent 2otion for :-ecution of .udgment Pending !ppeal. "n the other hand, N!P"C"R filed a Notice of !ppeal. %hereafter, N!P"C"R filed a $igorous opposition to the motion for e-ecution of 1udgment pending appeal with a motion for reconsideration of the 5ecision. N!P"C"R filed a 2anifestation and 2otion withdrawing its Notice of !ppeal purposely to gi$e way to the hearing of its motion for reconsideration. %he R%C issued an "rder granting e-ecution pending appeal and denying N!P"C"R+s motion for reconsideration.

N!P"C"R filed its Notice of !ppeal by registered mail which was denied by the R%C on the ground of ha$ing been filed out of time. 2eanwhile, the 5ecision of the R%C was e-ecuted pending appeal and funds of N!P"C"R were garnished by respondents Ibrahim and his co-heirs.

%he R%C granted the petition and rendered a modified 1udgment.

&ubse3uently, both respondent Ibrahim and N!P"C"R appealed to the C!. %he C! set aside the modified 1udgment and reinstated the original decision amending it further by deleting the award of moral damages and reducing the amount of rentals and attorney+s fees, Issue: 4hether respondents are entitled to 1ust compensation hinges upon who owns the sub-terrain area occupied by petitioner.

Ruling:
Petitioner maintains that the sub-terrain portion where the underground tunnels were constructed does not belong to respondents because, e$en conceding the fact that respondents owned the property, their right to the subsoil of the same does not e-tend beyond what is necessary to enable them to obtain all the utility and con$enience that such property can normally gi$e. In any case, petitioner asserts that respondents were still able to use the sub1ect property e$en with the e-istence of the tunnels, citing as an e-ample the fact that one of the respondents, "mar G. 2aruhom, had established his residence on a part of the property. Petitioner concludes that the underground tunnels ''; meters below respondents+ property could not ha$e caused damage or pre1udice to respondents and their claim to this effect was, therefore, purely con1ectural and speculati$e. %he contention lac,s merit. In the present case, petitioner failed to point to any e$idence demonstrating gra$e abuse of discretion on the part of the C! or to any other circumstances which would call for the application of the e-ceptions to the abo$e rule. Conse3uently, the C!+s findings which upheld those of the trial court that respondents owned and possessed the property and that its substrata was possessed by petitioner since '()* for the underground tunnels, cannot be disturbed. 2oreo$er, the Court sustains the finding of the lower courts that the sub-terrain portion of the property similarly belongs to respondents. %his conclusion is drawn from !rticle <0) of the Ci$il Code which pro$ides= ART. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any wor s or !a e any plantations and e"cavations which he !ay dee! proper, without detri!ent to servitudes and su#$ect to special laws and ordinances. %e cannot co!plain of the reasona#le re&uire!ents of aerial navigation. %hus, the ownership of land e-tends to the surface as well as to the subsoil under it. In Republic of the Philippines $. Court of !ppeals, this principle was applied to show that rights o$er lands are indi$isible and, conse3uently, re3uire a definiti$e and categorical classification, thus= %he Court of !ppeals 1ustified this by saying there is >no conflict of interest? between the owners of the surface rights and the owners of the sub-surface rights. %his is rather strange

doctrine, for it is a well-,nown principle that the owner of a piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to e$erything underneath and the airspace abo$e it up to a reasonable height. 9nder the aforesaid ruling, the land is classified as mineral underneath and agricultural on the surface, sub1ect to separate claims of title. %his is also difficult to understand, especially in its practical application. 9nder the theory of the respondent court, the surface owner will be planting on the land while the mining locator will be boring tunnels underneath. %he farmer cannot dig a well because he may interfere with the mining operations below and the miner cannot blast a tunnel lest he destroy the crops abo$e. %he Court feels that the rights o$er the land are indi$isible and that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. %he classification must be categorical@ the land must be either completely mineral or completely agricultural. Registered landowners may e$en be ousted of ownership and possession of their properties in the e$ent the latter are reclassified as mineral lands because real properties are characteristically indi$isible. 8or the loss sustained by such owners, they are entitled to 1ust compensation under the 2ining Laws or in appropriate e-propriation proceedings. In this regard, the trial court found that respondents could ha$e dug upon their property motori7ed deep wells but were pre$ented from doing so by the authorities precisely because of the construction and e-istence of the tunnels underneath the surface of their property. Respondents, therefore, still had a legal interest in the sub-terrain portion insofar as they could ha$e e-ca$ated the same for the construction of the deep well. %he fact that they could not was appreciated by the R%C as proof that the tunnels interfered with respondents+ en1oyment of their property and depri$ed them of its full use and en1oyment. Petitioner contends that the underground tunnels in this case constitute an easement upon the property of respondents which does not in$ol$e any loss of title or possession. %he manner in which the easement was created by petitioner, howe$er, $iolates the due process rights of respondents as it was without notice and indemnity to them and did not go through proper e-propriation proceedings. Petitioner could ha$e, at any time, $alidly e-ercised the power of eminent domain to ac3uire the easement o$er respondents+ property as this power encompasses not only the ta,ing or appropriation of title to and possession of the e-propriated property but li,ewise co$ers e$en the imposition of a mere burden upon the owner of the condemned property. &ignificantly, though, landowners cannot be depri$ed of their right o$er their land until e-propriation proceedings are instituted in court. %he court must then see to it that the ta,ing is for public use, that there is payment of 1ust compensation and that there is due process of law. In disregarding this procedure and failing to recogni7e respondents+ ownership of the sub-terrain portion, petitioner too, a ris, and e-posed itself to greater liability with the passage of time. It must be emphasi7ed that the ac3uisition of the easement is not without e-pense. %he underground tunnels impose limitations on respondents+ use of the property for an indefinite period and depri$e them of its ordinary use. Aased upon the foregoing, respondents are clearly entitled to the payment of 1ust compensation. Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner only occupies the subterrain portion, it is liable to pay not merely an easement fee but rather the full compensation for land. %his is so because in this case, the nature of the easement practically depri$es the owners of its normal beneficial use. Respondents, as the owners of the property thus e-propriated, are entitled to a 1ust compensation which should be neither more nor less, whene$er it is possible to ma,e the assessment, than the money e3ui$alent of said property.