“The right of way”

UMALOHOKAN

The government should not have a problem with the right of way. In the case of National Irrigation Administration vs. Court of Appeals and Ding Manglapus as respondents, G.R. No. 114348, September 20, 2000, the Supreme Court, ruled that:

Where the land was originally public land and awarded by free patent with a reservation for a legal easement of a right of way in favor of the government, just compensation need not be paid for the taking part thereof for public use as an easement of right of way, unlike if the land were originally private property. Article 619 of the 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. Where the land is originally public land, and awarded by free patent, we filed and declare that a legal easement of a right of way exists in favor of the government. The ruling would be otherwise if the land were originally private property, in which case, just compensation has to be paid for the taking of a part thereof for public use as an easement of a right of way.”

One who deals with the property registered under the Torrens system is charged with notice of burdens and claims that are annotated on the title. Even if the land were originally private property, just compensation must be paid for the taking a part thereof for public use as an easement of right of way. Even in expropriation proceedings to acquire private land for a road right of way, the rules of procedure provides that the government could take immediate possession and establishment of a road right of way if parties cannot agree on the just compensation, the government could establish a right of way and construct the road immediately, and the Court would later determine the just compensation. After the establishment of the road, the remaining property of the owner of real estate, shall also be reassessed for taxation purposes higher than the value claimed by the owner because the value will increase due to the introduction of the road and the owner is estopped from claiming a lesser value, because he is claiming that it is the fair market value of the property.

So, there is no problem for the government to establish or acquire a road right of way. The increase of value of the land subject to an easement of road right of way would increase correspondingly the real estate taxes to be paid, that it would be more than enough to pay for the road right of way. So, there is no problem of getting a road right of way.