NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
LUCMAN G. IBRAHIM, OMAR G. MARUHOM, ELIAS G.MARUHOM, BUCAY G.
MARUHOM, FAROUK G. MARUHOM, HIDJARA G. MARUHOM, ROCANIA G.
MARUHOM, POTRISAM G. MARUHOM, LUMBA G. MARUHOM, SINAB G.
MARUHOM, ACMAD G. MARUHOM, SOLAYMAN G. MARUHOM, MOHAMAD
M. IBRAHIM, and CAIRONESA M. IBRAHIM, respondents.
G.R. No. 168732. June 29, 2007
FIRST DIVISION

PONENTE: AZCUNA, J.:

FACTS:
On November 23, 1994, respondent Lucman G. Ibrahim, in his personal
capacity and in behalf of his co-heirs instituted an action against petitioner
National Power Corporation for recovery of possession of land and damages
before the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Sur.
Sometime in 1978, NAPOCOR, through alleged stealth and without
respondents’ knowledge and prior consent, took possession of the sub-terrain
area of their lands and constructed therein underground tunnels. The existence
of the tunnels was only discovered sometime in July 1992 by respondents and
then later confirmed on November 13, 1992 by NAPOCOR.
On October 7, 1992, respondents demanded that NAPOCOR pay damages
and vacate the sub-terrain portion of their lands but the latter refused to vacate
much less pay damages. Respondents further averred that the construction of
the underground tunnels has endangered their lives and properties as Marawi
City lies in an area of local volcanic and tectonic activity.
On the other hand, NAPOCOR filed an answer with counterclaim denying
the material allegations of the complaint and interposing affirmative and
special defenses, namely that (1) there is a failure to state a cause of action
since respondents seek possession of the sub-terrain portion when they were
never in possession of the same, (2) respondents have no cause of action
because they failed to show proof that they were the owners of the property,
and (3) the tunnels are a government project for the benefit of all and all
private lands are subject to such easement as may be necessary for the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondents are the owners of the sub-terrain
area occupied by petitioner.
RULING:
Yes. The private respondents are the owners of the sub-terrain area
occupied by the National Power Corporation.
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.
Thus, the ownership of land extends to the surface as well as to the
subsoil under it. In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, this
principle was applied to show that rights over lands are indivisible and,
consequently, require a definitive and categorical classification, thus:
The Court of Appeals justified this by saying there is "no conflict of
interest" between the owners of the surface rights and the owners of the sub-
surface rights. This is rather strange doctrine, for it is a well-known principle
that the owner of a piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to
everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable height.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 57792 dated June 8, 2005 is AFFIRMED.
 EDNA PALERO-TAN, complainant,
vs.
CIRIACO I. URDANETA, JR., UTILITY WORKER I, RTC, BRANCH 14, BAYBAY,
LEYTE, respondent.
A.M. No. P-07-2399 June 18, 2008
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2390-P)

EN BANC

PONENTE: CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

FACTS:
Complainant claimed that it has been her practice to keep her and her
sister’s pieces of jewelry in the locked drawer of her table at her RTC office
because she fears that they might be lost at the boarding house she is renting.
However, on 8 July 2005, she discovered that her ring and bracelet worth
fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00) were missing. Complainant remembered
that on 18 June 2005, a Saturday, her younger sister went to the RTC to ask for
her necklace. Complainant took out from her table drawer a transparent plastic
sachet which contained her ring and bracelet, and her sister’s necklace, and
after handing over to her sister the necklace, she returned the plastic sachet,
still containing the bracelet and ring, to her table drawer. She maintained that
the only person who was present and saw her take out the jewelry from her
table drawer was respondent, whose table is adjacent to hers.
According to complainant, when she found out that her ring and bracelet
were missing, she informed her officemates about it, but nobody claimed to
have seen the missing jewelry. On 28 July 2005, an officemate, Anecito D.
Altone (Altone), confided to her that he heard from his landlady, Anastacia R.
Nable (Nable), that respondent and his wife, Milagros, had a quarrel because the
latter discovered a ring and a bracelet in respondent’s coin purse. Milagros
suspected that respondent bought the jewelry for his mistress. Complainant
approached the RTC presiding judge, Judge Absalon U. Fulache (Judge Fulache),
and relayed to him the information she gathered. Judge Fulache advised her to
invite Nable and Milagros to his chambers so he could confirm the information.
Milagros admitted to Judge Fulache that she and respondent had a fight
because she found a ring and bracelet inside respondent’s coin purse which she
believed he would give to his mistress. Complainant was certain that the jewels
Milagros saw in respondent’s purse were hers based on Milagros’s description
of the said ring and bracelet. In a separate meeting with Judge Fulache,
respondent confessed that he found complainant’s jewels in the court’s
premises, but he could no longer return them because he already threw them
away.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Urdaneta who found the lost jewelry has the
obligation to restore it to the owner?
RULING:
When a person who finds a thing that has been lost or mislaid by the
owner takes the thing into his hands, he acquires physical custody only and
does not become vested with legal possession. In assuming such custody, the
finder is charged with the obligation of restoring the thing to its owner. It is
thus respondent’s duty to report to his superior or his officemates that he
found something. The Civil Code, in Article 719, explicitly requires the finder
of a lost property to report it to the proper authorities, thus:
Article 719. Whoever finds a movable, which is not treasure, must return
it to its previous possessor. If the latter is unknown, the finder shall
immediately deposit it with the mayor of the city or municipality where
the finding has taken place.
The finding shall be publicly announced by the mayor for two
consecutive weeks in the way he deems best.
If the movables cannot be kept without deterioration, or without the
expenses which considerably diminish its value, it shall be sold at public
auction eight days after the publication.
Six months from the publication having elapsed without the owner
having appeared, the thing found, or its value, shall be awarded to the
finder. The finder and the owner shall be obliged, as the case may be, to
reimburse the expenses.
Contrary to respondent’s claim, this Court is convinced that respondent
had the intention to appropriate the jewelry to himself had these not been
discovered by his wife. His claim that the ring and bracelet were worthless
"fancy" jewelry is immaterial because the basis for his liability is his act of
taking something which does not belong to him.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Ciriaco I. Urdaneta,
Jr., GUILTY of Grave Misconduct, and hereby imposes on said respondent a fine
of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement
benefits. The Financial Management Office of the Office of the Court
Administrator is directed to release the remaining amount of the retirement
benefits to respondent.