Installation of Cable Car System

The Legal Rights of the Cable Car Operators

Versus
The legal Rights of the Land Owners Affected
[Legal Opinion]

The right of ownership is always subject to the restrictions imposed by law

and the rights of others.
It may also be limited by the State through its inherent Power of Eminent
Domain. However, this Power of Eminent Domain or the power to take
private properties for public use is not solely exercised by the government,
it can also be granted and exercised by public service companies or public
utilities.
Thus, should the need arise, the Cable Car Company can invoke this right
to justify the taking of a private property needed for its operation if the
owner of the same refuses to sell it.
Perhaps, the most important question that the Cable Car Company must
ask is this --Does the owner of the land that will be traversed by the Cable
Cars Lines own the airspace above his or property?
The extent of the ownership of a land owner over his or her property will
determine whether or not the Cable Car Company need to pay just
compensation and other related damages.
Surely, the lots where the posts and cable car stations will be erected must
undergo the process of expropriation since it is very clear that the lot
owners will be deprived of the use of the same . Thus, just compensation
must be paid to the land owners that will be affected by the construction of
such posts and cable car stations.
However, the airspace of properties traversed by the cable car lines may be
subject of expropriation or may be used freely by the Cable Car Company
depending the classification of the land and the height of the cable car lines
that will be installed.
Art. 440 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states:

Article 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession

everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated
attached
thereto, either naturally or artificially.

to
or

In the light of the above mentioned Article, (which deals with the rights of
the owners to their properties), it is clear that a land owner, does not
necessarily own the airspace above his or her land. The land owner can
only acquire ownership of the said airspace only through accession; that is,
when he or she attaches or incorporates something to his or her land.
Thus, following the legal concept the accessory follows the principal, the
land owners ownership is limited only to the thing attached or incorporated
to his or her land or lot and does not extend to the airspace above it.
Corollary, Article 437 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states the extent of
the right of ownership of the owner of a parcel of land. It reads:
Art. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of
everything under it, and he can construct
thereon any works or make any
plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to
servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. He cannot complain of
the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation.

It is clear from the above cited article that the owner has the right to
construct works or make any plantations in his or her parcel of land, but is
subject to servitudes and other laws and ordinances. It is also subject to
aerial navigation.
It is important to classify the lands or lots that will be traversed by the Cable
Cars Lines. If the land is located in a residential area where the line height
and the operation of the cable cars above it cannot in any way affect the
use and enjoyment of the land as well as its improvements, then the Cable
Car Company can operate without paying just compensation and/or
easement of right of way.
Even if the land owner wants to introduce improvements that would in
effect increase the height of the existing building later on, the Cable Car
Company has already acquired the right of way easement over the said
parcel of land. Thus, the land owner is no longer allowed to introduce

improvements to his or her existing property that would impede the

operation of the Cable Car System.
Even if the land owner sells or transfers the ownership of the said land
and/ or improvements thereof, the buyer must respect the right of
easement already acquired by the Cable Car Company.
It is well settled that an easement is inseparable from the estate or property
it belongs.
In addition, the buyer cannot have a better right than the original owner
(Nemo dat quod non habet).
Furthermore, under existing laws and/ or zoning ordinances, there are
existing height restrictions applicable to residential buildings. If the gap
between the maximum height limit imposed by law or zoning ordinance and
the line height of the cable cars, cannot in anyway restrict the enjoyment of
the property of the lot owner, the cable car company is not liable to pay
anything to the land owner.
Conversely, If the land below the cable car line is classified as a business
and commercial district, and the installation of the said Cable Car System
would deny the land owner the beneficial use of his or her lot or land, taking
into consideration height restrictions applicable for commercial lots and the
height of the Cable Car lines installed above it, the Cable Car Company
must file a complaint for expropriation.
In this regard, the Ruling of the Supreme Court in Camarines Norte
Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, is instructive:

The acquisition of an easement of a right-of-way falls within the

purview of the power of eminent domain. Such conclusion finds support in
easements of right-of-way where the Supreme Court sustained the award
of just compensation for private property condemned for public use. The
Supreme Court, in Republic v. PLDT thus held that:

Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in the

taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the expropriated
property; but no cogent reason appears why said power may not be
availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned
property, without loss of title and possession. It is unquestionable that real
property may, through expropriation, be subjected to an easement of rightof-way.

However, a simple right-of-way easement transmits no rights,

except the easement. Vines Realty retains full ownership and it is not
totally deprived of the use of the land. It can continue doing what it wants
to do with the land, except those that would result in contact with the
wires.

The acquisition of this easement, nevertheless, is not gratis.

Considering the nature and effect of the installation power lines, the
limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period deprives private
respondents of its ordinary use. For these reasons, Vines Realty is entitled
to payment of just compensation, which must be neither more nor less
than the money equivalent of the property.

It is, therefore, clear that NPCs acquisition of an easement of right-of-way on the lands
of respondents amounted to expropriation of the portions of the latters property for
which they are entitled to a reasonable and just compensation.

Although, the jurisprudence cited above involves transmission lines

traversing below the parcel of land subject to the controversy, the doctrine
of the same may be applied by analogy, since both involve installation of
structures above a property owned by another.
It would be a better approach, perhaps, to ask the cooperation of the Local
Government Units where the cable cars will pass through to enact zoning
ordinances prohibiting land owners traversed by the Cable Cars Lines to
build high structures on their properties.

Zoning and regulation of the construction of buildings are valid exercise of

Police Powers granted to Local Government Units through their respective
legislative bodies.
This is an effective cost cutting strategy available for the Cable Car
Company. Since zoning ordinance is an exercise of police powers, the
Cable Car Company is no longer obligated to pay just compensation and/
or easement of right of way.