Manila Railroad Co. vs. Paredes, 32 Phil. 534, No.

10781 December 17, 1915

TRENT, J.:

FACTS:

The plaintiff is a railroad corporation in which in conformity with its charter, it constructed and is
now operating a branch line from Manila to Gumaca, Province of Tayabas. Defendants surnamed Alandy
instituted an action to recover the value of a parcel of land comprising a portion of the right of way of the
Gumaca line, alleging that they were the owners and that the company had never acquired title thereto
by amicable purchase or expropriation proceedings. The amended complaint asks for the restitution of
the land, P5,000 damages for improvements thereon which, it is alleged, the railroad company had
destroyed, and an additional sum of P5,000 "by way of punishment and chastisement of the defendant
company, so that it will not again illegally and arbitrarily occupy lands of private ownership."

In reply, the company believed that it had acquired title to the land by purchase from the owner,
further alleging that it constructed its railroad over the said parcel in due course, and continued to
occupy the land and operate its railroad over it without objection from any one and especially from the
defendants, until shortly before the defendants instituted their action to oust the company.

ISSUE: Whether the company occupied the land with the express or implied consent or acquiescence of
the owner. (YES)

RULING:

The primary reason for thus denying to the owner the remedies usually afforded to him against
usurpers is the irremedial injury which would result to the railroad company and to the public in general.
It will readily be seen that the interruption of the transportation service at any point on the right of way
impedes the entire service of the company and causes loss and inconvenience to all passengers and
shippers using the line. Under these circumstances, public policy, if not public necessity, demands that
the owner of the land be denied the ordinarily remedies of ejectment and injunction. The fact that the
railroad company has the capacity to eventually acquire the land by expropriation proceedings
undoubtedly assists in coming to the conclusion that the property -owner has no right to the remedies of
ejectment or injunction. There is also something akin to equitable estoppel in the conduct of one who
stands idly by and watches the construction of the railroad without protest. (Union Pac. R. Co. vs. City of
Greeley [C. C. A.], 189 Fed., 1.) But the real strength of the rule lies in the fact that it is against public
policy to permit a property owner, under such circumstances, to interfere with the service rendered to the
public by the railroad company.
 There is, however, a limit to this rule. The power of eminent domain is essential to the general
welfare of society. It is assumed as an attribute of sovereignty by the state and by it delegated to persons
or corporations whose functions are to offer services of some sort to the general public. such as highways,
railroads, telegraph and telephone companies, public service plants, and the like. While the power of
eminent domain is usually and ordinarily delegated to all such enterprises, and may be considered
essential to their proper development and efficiency, it is theirs only by grant from the state and within
the limits prescribed. If therefore, any such person or corporation enters upon private property in the
absence of such authority, they are there as mere trespassers and stand in no better position than any
other intruder.

In the case at bar the company has been granted a franchise for its line to Gumaca. (Act No. 1905,
sec. 1.) It entered upon the land of the herein defendants in good faith. The continued silence of the
defendants while the railroad was in the' course of construction and until it was completed amounts to an
implied acquiescence in the taking of their property. Hence, all the requirements of the rule the Court
have discussed above have been met and the defendants are now left with an action for damages as their
only remedy.