National Irrigation Administration vs. Court of Appeals and Dick Manglapus

No just compensation is due for the government’s use of a portion of land originally granted by free patent as a legal easement of right of way under Section 112 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, where the irrigation canal does not exceed the statutory width; the patent’s reservation of public easements and servitudes is a subsisting condition, and a transferee under the Torrens system is charged with notice of that annotation.

Petitioner National Irrigation Administration is a government agency, while private respondent Dick Manglapus acquired a parcel of land in Alcala, Cagayan from Vicente Manglapus, who had obtained it by free patent over originally public land. The free patent and subsequent Torrens titles carried reservations under Commonwealth Act No. 141, including public easements and servitudes, and Section 112 thereof authorizes a right of way for irrigation ditches not exceeding twenty meters. The dispute requires determining whether those reservations and the Torrens notice rule exempt NIA from paying just compensation for its use of a portion of the land.

On June 28, 1963, a free patent over three (3) hectares of land in Barrio Baybayog, Municipality of Alcala, Province of Cagayan, was issued in the name of Vicente Manglapus, respondent’s predecessor-in-interest, and registered under Original Certificate of Title No. P-24814. The patent and title granted the land subject to several provisos, including that, except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, the land would be inalienable and not subject to encumbrance for five years from the date of the patent and would not be liable for the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of that period; that it could not be encumbered, alienated, or transferred to any person, corporation, association, or partnership not qualified to acquire public lands under Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended; and that it could not be subject to any encumbrance in favor of any corporation, association, or partnership except with the consent of the grantee and the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and solely for educational, religious, or charitable purposes or for a right of way. The title further stated that the land was subject finally 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 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, and to the right of the Government to administer and protect the timber found thereon for five years from the date of the patent, with the grantee or heirs allowed to cut and utilize such timber for personal use.

Subsequently, Dick Manglapus acquired the lot from Vicente Manglapus by absolute sale. On July 18, 1974, the land was registered in Dick Manglapus’s name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-26658 of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Cagayan. The land was particularly described as Lot No. 3559, Pls-497, with an area of 30,438 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-26658 and Tax Declaration No. 11985. The transfer certificate of title stated that title to the land was subject to the provisions of the Land Registration Act and the Public Land Act, as well as the Mining Laws if the land is mineral, and subject further to such conditions contained in the original title as may be subsisting.

Sometime in 1982, NIA entered into a contract with Villamar Development Construction for the construction of canals in Amulung, Cagayan and Alcala, Cagayan. NIA then entered a portion of Manglapus’s land and made diggings and fillings thereon. The portion entered was described in a sketch prepared by NIA’s employee as NIA canal “Lateral D,” with an area of 7,880 square meters, which is a portion of Lot 3559, Pls-497. The canal NIA constructed was only eleven (11) meters in width.

On March 14, 1991, Manglapus filed with the Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, a complaint for damages against NIA. Manglapus alleged that NIA’s diggings and fillings destroyed the agricultural use of his land and that no reasonable compensation was paid for its taking. Despite service of notice of the pre-trial conference, NIA did not appear. On December 3, 1991, the trial court declared NIA in default and received Manglapus’s evidence ex parte. On December 23, 1991, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Manglapus, ordering NIA to pay P150,600.00 and P50,000.00 as compensatory damages, P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees, P2,000.00 as litigation expenses, and the costs of the suit.

• No Just Compensation Due to Statutory Easement: NIA maintained that the Transfer Certificate of Title and Original Certificate of Title covering the subject land contained a reservation granting the government a right of way over the land, and therefore it was under no obligation to pay Manglapus just compensation for the taking of a portion of his property for use as an easement of a right of way.

• Taking Without Reasonable Compensation: Manglapus alleged that NIA’s diggings and fillings destroyed the agricultural use of his land and that no reasonable compensation was paid for its taking.

• Just Compensation for Easement of Right of Way: Whether NIA should pay Manglapus just compensation for the taking of a portion of his property for use as an easement of a right of way.
• Torrens Notice / Buyer in Good Faith: Whether Manglapus may claim the status of a transferee or buyer in good faith despite the annotations on the Torrens title.

• Just Compensation for Easement of Right of Way: No. A legal easement of right of way exists in favor of the government under Section 112, Commonwealth Act No. 141, because the land was originally public and granted by free patent, and the canal was eleven meters wide, within the statutory limit.
• Torrens Notice / Buyer in Good Faith: No. Manglapus is charged with notice of the conditions annotated on the original certificate of title, and the law cannot protect him as a buyer in good faith for value.

• Just Compensation for Easement of Right of Way: The Court agreed with NIA that the Transfer Certificate of Title and Original Certificate of Title contained a reservation granting the government a right of way. The transfer certificate of title stated that title was subject to such conditions contained in the original title as may be subsisting. The original certificate of title stated that the land was subject to all conditions and public easements and servitudes recognized and prescribed by law, especially Sections 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, and 114 of 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 was a subsisting condition. Section 112 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 reasonably require for carrying on their business, with damages for the improvements only. NIA’s canal was only eleven meters wide, well within the limit provided by law. Manglapus therefore had no cause to complain. Article 619 of the Civil Code provides that easements are established either by law or by the will of the owners, the former being legal and the latter voluntary. A legal easement of a right of way exists in favor of the government because the land was originally public land and awarded to Manglapus by free patent. The ruling would be otherwise if the land were originally private property, in which case just compensation must be paid for the taking of a part thereof for public use as an easement of a right of way.
• Torrens Notice / Buyer in Good Faith: Manglapus could not argue that he was a transferee or buyer in good faith. Under the Torrens system, for one to be a buyer in good faith and for value, the vendee must see the transfer certificate of title and rely upon the same. Here, the annotation on the transfer certificate of title imposed on Manglapus the duty to refer to the conditions annotated on the back of the original certificate of title, which he did not do. The law cannot protect him. Manglapus is a transferee with notice of the liens annotated in the title. One who deals with property registered under the Torrens system is charged with notice of burdens and claims that are annotated on the title.

• Legal Easement of Right of Way under Section 112, Commonwealth Act No. 141 — Lands granted by free patent are subject to a legal easement of right of way not exceeding twenty meters in width for irrigation ditches and similar works, with damages for improvements only. The Court applied this because the land was originally public and granted by free patent, and NIA’s canal was eleven meters wide, within the statutory limit.
• Torrens System Notice Rule — A buyer in good faith and for value must see the transfer certificate of title and rely upon it; one who deals with property registered under the Torrens system is charged with notice of burdens and claims annotated on the title. Manglapus was charged with notice of the conditions in the original certificate of title because the transfer certificate of title referred to subsisting conditions in the original title.
• Legal vs. Voluntary Easements under Article 619, Civil Code — Easements are established either by law or by the will of the owners; the former are legal and the latter voluntary. The Court found a legal easement of right of way in favor of the government, not a voluntary easement, because the land was originally public and granted by free patent.
• Just Compensation for Private Property Taken for Public Use — If the land were originally private property, just compensation must be paid for the taking of a part thereof for public use as an easement of a right of way. The Court distinguished the present case because the land was originally public land.

• "This reservation, unlike the other provisos imposed on the grant, was not limited by any time period and thus is a subsisting condition." — The passage explains why the reservation of public easements and servitudes in the original certificate of title continued to bind the land despite the lapse of time-limited conditions.
• "The land was originally public land, and awarded to respondent Manglapus by free patent. The ruling would be otherwise if the land were originally private property, in which case, just compensation must be paid for the taking of a part thereof for public use as an easement of a right of way." — This states the decisive distinction between public land granted by free patent and originally private land for purposes of just compensation.
• "One who deals with property registered under the Torrens system is charged with notice of burdens and claims that are annotated on the title." — This is the controlling Torrens notice rule applied against Manglapus.
• "shall further be subject to a right of way sot 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 reasonably require for carrying on their business, with damages for the improvements only" — This is the statutory basis for the legal easement of right of way under Section 112 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.

• Heirs of Alberto Suguitan vs. City of Mandaluyong, G.R. No. 123215, March 14, 2000 — Cited in footnote 32 for the rule that if the land were originally private, just compensation must be paid for the taking of a part thereof for public use as an easement of a right of way.
• Islamic Directorate of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 272 SCRA 454 (1997) — Cited for the rule that for one to be a buyer in good faith and for value under the Torrens system, the vendee must see the transfer certificate of title and rely upon the same.
• Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 642 (1997) — Cited for the rule that one who deals with property registered under the Torrens system is charged with notice of burdens and claims annotated on the title.
• Secuya vs. de Selma, G.R. No. 13602, February 22, 2000 — Cited together with Legarda for the Torrens notice rule.

• 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 reasonably require for carrying on their business, with damages for the improvements only. Applied because NIA’s canal was only eleven meters wide.
• Sections 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, and 114, Commonwealth Act No. 141 — The Original Certificate of Title reserved all conditions and public easements and servitudes recognized and prescribed by law, especially those sections. The Court held this reservation was not time-limited and subsisted.
• Article 619, Civil Code — Provides that easements are established either by law or by the will of the owners; the former are called legal and the latter voluntary easements. The Court applied it to classify the government’s right of way as a legal easement.
• Article III, Section 9, 1987 Constitution — Cited in footnote 32 in connection with the rule that just compensation must be paid for the taking of private property for public use; the Court found it inapplicable because the land was originally public.
• Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 635 — Footnote 31 notes that the twenty-meter width limit was increased to sixty meters by P.D. 635, Section 1. The Court still found the eleven-meter canal within the statutory limit.

Davide, Jr., C.J.; Puno, J.; and Kapunan, J., concur. Ynares-Santiago, J., took no part.