Case #3

National Power Corporation (NPC)

v.
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 rightof-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 petitioners 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.