Inverse condemnation is a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of the property which has been taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency. The phrase “inverse condemnation,” as a common understanding of that phrase would suggest, simply describes an action that is the “inverse” or “reverse” of a condemnation proceeding.”
This is a case that involves an inverse condemnation pinned by the Supreme Court on the case of Napocor vs Heirs of Sangkay.
G.R. No. 165828, [August 24, 2011], 671 PHIL 569-609)
Facts:
On November 21, 1997, the Heirs of Macabangkit, including Cebu, Bangowa-an, Sayana, Nasser, Manta, Edgar, Putri, Mongkoy, and Amir Macabangkit, filed a case against the National Power Corporation (NPC) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Heirs sought damages and the recovery of their 221,573-square-meter land in Ditucalan, Iligan City. They alleged that an NPC underground tunnel diverting water flow from the Agus River for a hydroelectric project traversed their land. This revelation came in 1995 after their attempts to sell the land for development were hindered due to the tunnel’s potential danger. Their land lost value and became unsafe for habitation.
NPC countered that the Heirs were not entitled to compensation under Republic Act No. 6395, and any claim had already been prescribed, as the tunnel was built in 1979. The RTC conducted an ocular inspection and concluded that the tunnel traversed the land, causing damage to trees and property value. The RTC ruled in favor of the Heirs, ordering NPC to pay compensation, rental fees, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
On appeal, NPC argued that there was insufficient evidence of the tunnel’s existence and that the Heirs’ claims were barred by prescription and laches. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, asserting that the tunnel’s existence was substantiated by testimonies, maps, and inspection reports. The CA also found that the provisions of Republic Act No. 6395 applied only to surface facilities and not to concealed tunnels.
The CA rejected NPC’s appeal and upheld the RTC’s ruling, stating that NPC was mandated by law to pay just compensation for its activities. The decision was affirmed, concluding that the Heirs were entitled to compensation due to the tunnel’s presence and its impact on their property.
Issue:
Whether the Heirs of Macabangkit’s right to claim just compensation prescribed?
No, the Heirs of Macabangkit’s right to claim just compensation had not been prescribed. The legal basis for this is the Court’s interpretation of Section 3 (i) of Republic Act No. 6395. The Court concluded that the five-year prescriptive period provided under this section applies only to an action for damages and does not extend to an action to recover just compensation. The Court differentiated between these two types of actions, with the action to recover just compensation arising from the constitutional prohibition against the taking of property without just compensation. Therefore, even if the underground tunnel construction occurred more than five years before the complaint was filed, the Heirs’ claim for just compensation is not barred by statutory prescription. This interpretation is based on the clear language of the law and the distinction between actions for damages and actions to recover just compensation.
Real LexEcon 