Sixty-nine days, after the 6.9 magnitude earthquake which hit the northern part of our Province, the aftermath is still evident, and it will be a long time-coming for repairs and rehabilitation to be initiated, much less completed.
With bridges broken, it is inevitable that diversion routes are used to facilitate passage to and from Guihulngan.
Controversy has sprung from private owners, who are asserting their right to collect fees for passage. It is time to recall the ruling of the Supreme Count in the Case of NIA VS. CA, G.R. No. 114348, Sept. 20, 2000, which states: “The sole issue is whether the NIA should pay Manglapus just compensation for the taking of a portion of his property for use as easement of a right of way. We find that NIA is under no such obligation. We sustain the appeal. We agree with NIA that the Transfer Certificate of Title and the Original Certificate of Title covering the subject parcel of land contained a reservation granting the government a right of way over the land covered therein… Under the Original Certificate of Title, there was a reservation and condition that the land is subject to “to all conditions and public easements and servitudes recognized and prescribed by law especially those mentioned in Sections 109, 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114, Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended.”
This reservation, unlike the other provisos imposed on the grant, was not limited by any time period, and thus, is a subsisting condition.
Section 112, Commonwealth Act No. 141, provides that lands granted by patent, “shall further be subject to a right of way not exceeding twenty meters in width for public highways, railroads, irrigation ditches, aqueducts, telegraphs and telephone lines, and similar works as the Government or any public or quasi-public service or enterprises, including mining or forest concessionaires may reasonable require for carrying on their business, with damages for the improvements only.”
