NPC vs. SPS. Jose c. Campos, Jr, Ma.

Clara Lopez-Campos

Facts:
Sometime in the middle of 1970, Dr. Paulo C. Campos, who was a president of
an Electric Cooperative in Cavite, verbally requested Jose Campos (Petitioner) to grant
him a right-of-way to erect a wooden electric post and transmission for the electrification
of Puerto Azul. The respondent gave authority for the condition that the said installation
would only be temporary in nature. The petitioner assured that the wooden electric post
will be relocated as soon as the permanent post will become available. 23 years had
passed the petitioner still continued the use of the subject property without
compensating the respondents.
1994 – Agent of the petitioner allegedly trespassed on the subject property to conduct
an engineering survey but was asked to leave by the caretaker.
1995 – The agent (Mr. Raj) went to the office of the respondent to request permission to
enter the property in order to conduct a survey to erect the all-steel transmission line
tower. Respondent denied the request and expressed his preference to talk the chief or
head of the petitioner’s office. The agent of the respondent re-entered the subject
property presenting a purportedly written authorization letter from the respondent Jose
Campos, but when the letter was demanded for confirmation the agent of the petitioner
refused to comply and was again asked to leave the property.
The petitioner instituted an expropriation case alleging that the subject property was
selected in a manner compatible with the greatest public good and the least private
injury. The petitioner also insinuated that they have exhausted all efforts to negotiate
with the respondent but failed to achieve an amicable agreement.
The petitioner contends that it had already acquired the easement of right-of-way over
the portion of the subject property by prescription, the said easement having been
allegedly continuous and apparent for a period of about twenty-three years.
Issue: Whether or not the property can be acquired through prescription.
Ruling: The petition is denied for lack of merit.

Ratio:
Acquisitive prescription may either be ordinary, in which case the possession
must be in good faith and with just title, or extraordinary, in which case there is either
good faith or just title. In either case, there has to be possession which must be in the
concept of owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Act of possessory character
executed in virtue of license or mere tolerance of the owner shall not be available for the
purpose of possession. Acts of possessory character performed by one who holds by
mere tolerance of the owner are clearly not in concepto de dueno, and such possessory
acts, no matter how long so continued do not start the running of the period of
prescription.
In the case at bar, the petitioner possession of the subject property was due merely to
the tacit permission and tolerance of the respondents. Accordingly this permissive use
by the petitioner of the portion of the subject property no matter how long continued will
no create an easement of right-of-way. NPC never acquired the requisite possession
which is the fundamental basis of prescription whether ordinary or extraordinary.