G.R. No. 167290 November 26, 2014
HERMANO OIL MANUFACTURING & SUGAR CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, ENGR. JAIME S. DUMLAO, JR., PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (PNCC) and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Hermano Oil Manufacturing & Sugar Corporation owns a parcel of land bounded by an access fence along the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX). It requested the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) to grant an easement of right of way, claiming the fence totally deprived it of the enjoyment and possession of its property by barring entry and exit from the NLEX. The TRB denied the request, citing inconsistency with Republic Act No. 2000 (Limited Access Highway Act) and potential adverse effects on NLEX rehabilitation and traffic. Petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance, grant of easement of right of way, and damages against the TRB, its Executive Director, and later impleaded the PNCC and DPWH. It alleged deprivation of property without due process and just compensation, and denial of equal protection as adjacent owners had access. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss, ruling the suit was against the state without its consent and the injunction sought was prohibited by Presidential Decree No. 1818 and Republic Act No. 8975 . The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, noting the NLEX is a limited access facility under R.A. No. 2000 , petitioner bought the property when the NLEX and fence already existed, there was an existing road network in front of the property, and the action for specific performance was improper absent a contract.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is entitled to an easement of right of way over the NLEX.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The NLEX is a limited access facility under R.A. No. 2000 , which allows the DPWH to designate such highways and regulate access. The petitioner’s demand for direct access contravenes this law. The petitioner acquired the property in 1999 when the NLEX and the access fence were already in existence, and its title indicated a portion had been sold to the Republic of the Philippines. Therefore, the property’s isolation was due to the acts of its predecessors-in-interest, barring a claim for a compulsory easement under Article 649 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, the petitioner admitted an alternative access via a road network in front of its property, negating the indispensability required for a compulsory right of way. The suit against the TRB, DPWH, and their official was a suit against the state, which is impermissible without its consent, as the relief sought would involve state appropriation of funds. The injunction sought was also prohibited by P.D. No. 1818 and R.A. No. 8975 , which bar courts from issuing restraining orders or injunctions against government infrastructure projects. The limited access imposed is a valid exercise of police power for public safety and welfare, not a compensable taking under eminent domain. The equal protection claim also fails as the law applies uniformly to all properties along the limited access highway.