Property Week 11
-
Upload
kikoy-ilagan -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Property Week 11
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
1/27
RELOVA V. LAVAREZ- EASEMENT ANDSERVITUDE
The enjoyment of the plaintiff of an easement for the maintenance of an
irrigation aqueduct and a dam on the lands of defendant for a period of
more than 20 years confers title thereto upon the plaintiff by virtue of
prescription and burdens the lands of the defendants with a
corresponding servitude.
FACTS:
The plaintiff is the owner of a tract of rice land which is cultivated with the
aid of water brought from a river through an aqueduct which passes over
the land of the defendants. This was by virtue of an easement the use of
which had been with the plaintiff for more than thirty years. On the land of
the defendants there was a dam with a small gate or aperture in its face
which was used to control the flow of the water in the aqueduct, by
permitting a greater or less quantity to escape in a drainage ditch, also on
the land of the defendants.
One of the defendants completely destroyed the dam and let all the water
escape by the drainage ditch, so that none flowed on the land of the
plaintiff. At the time when the dam was destroyed the plain
five cavanes of land prepared to plant rice, but because of
the water resulting from the destruction of the dam he was
his crop. Defendants claim that the plaintiff is not the owne
watered by the aqueduct of the class known as padagat (r
planted in May). It was also alleged that the plaintiff suffere
by the destruction of the dam, because all the lands of pla
cultivated with the aid of water from the aqueduct are of th
as binanbang (rice lands planted in August or September)
destruction of the dam in May and the consequent failure o
aqueduct at that period did not, and could not, damage the
interfere with the proper cultivation of his lands.
Lastly, defendants say that that the evidence on record do
the existence of the servitude in the lands of the defendan
the lands of the plaintiff landowner for the maintenance of
and dam in question.
ISSUE:Whether or not there was a valid servitude between the pa
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
2/27
HELD:
Save for the issue on the existence of the servitude, all other allegations
of defendants were outrightly disregarded as they were clearly
unmeritorious in light of the findings of fact. However, the Court ruled that
there was a valid easement in light of the fact that the aqueduct and the
dam had been in existence for more than 30 years, during which time the
plaintif had exercised its use. It was alleged that no benefit was granted
to the plaintiff since his (plaintiff's) land is situated higher than defendants'
land. Moreover, even if defendants had the right to open the gates of the
dam to prevent destructive overflow upon their land, this does not give
them the right to stop the flow of water altogether.
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
3/27
SOLID MANILA CORP. VS. BIO HONG TRADINGCO.- EASEMENT AND SERVITUDES
Servitudes are merely accessories to the tenement of which they form
part, and even if they are possessed of a separate juridical existence,
they cannot be alienated from the tenement or mortgaged separately.
Note: In a personal servitude, there is no "owner of a dominant tenement"
to speak of, and the easement pertains to persons without a dominant
estate, in this case, the public at large. (Merger, which presupposes
ownership, is not possible.)
FACTS:
Solid Manila Corp. is the owner of a parcel of land located in Ermita. The
same lies in the vicinity of another parcel registered under Bio Hong
Trading whose title came from a prior owner. In the deed of sale between
Bio Hong and the vendor, 900 sqm of the lot was reserved as an
easement of way.
The construction of the private alley was annotated on Bio Hongs title
stating among other things "(6) That the alley shall remain open at all
times, and no obstructions whatsoever shall be placed the
that the owner of the lot on which the alley has been const
allow the public to use the same, and allow the City to lay
and drainage purposes, and shall not act (sic) for any inde
use thereof
The petitioner claims that ever since, it (along with other re
neighboring estates) made use of the above private alley a
and contributed to its upkeep, until sometime in 1983, whe
protests, the private respondent constructed steel gates th
unhampered use.
On December 6, 1984, the petitioner commenced suit for iagainst the private respondent, to have the gates removed
full access to the easement.
The trial court ordered Bi Hong to open the gates but the la
that the easement has been extinguished by merger in the
of the dominant and servient estates upon the purchase of
from its former owner.
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
4/27
CA reversed holding that an easement is a mere limitation on ownership
and that it does not impair the private respondent's title, and that since
the private respondent had acquired title to the property, "merger"
brought about an extinguishment of the easement.
Thus, Solid went to the SC alleging that the very deed of sale executed
between the Bio Hong and the previous owner of the property "excluded"
the alley in question, and that in any event, the intent of the parties was to
retain the "alley" as an easement notwithstanding the sale.
[While the case was pending, Bio Hong asked the RTC to cancel the
annotation in question, which it granted subject to the final outcome of the
prior case.]
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not easements may be alienated (sold) from the tenementor mortgaged separately
2) Whether or not the easement had been extinguished by merger.
HELD: NO to both
1) The sale included the alley. The court rejected Solids c
the alley was not included in the sale. It was included but t
limitation on its use-the easement. As a mere right of way,
separated from the tenement and maintain an independen
(Art. 617)
Even though Bio Hong acquired ownership over the prope
the disputed alley as a result of the conveyance, it did n
right to close that alley or otherwise put up obstructions th
prevent the public from using it, because as a servitude, th
supposed to be open to the public.
2) No genuine merger took place as a consequence of the
the private respondent corporation. According to the Civil C
exists when ownership of the dominant and servient estate
consolidated in the same person. Merger requires full own
estates.Note that The servitude in question is a personal servitude
for the benefit of a community, or of one or more persons t
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
5/27
encumbered estate does not belong). In a personal servitude, there is
therefore no "owner of a dominant tenement" to speak of, and the
easement pertains to persons without a dominant estate, in this case, the
public at large. Thus, merger could not have been possible.
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
6/27
CID VS. JAVIER- NOTARIAL PROHIBITION
Notarial prohibition is required to start the running of prescription. Also
Registration of the Immovable without the registration of the easement
extinguishes the easement.
FACTS:
The easement in dispute here is an easement of light and view, which is
a negative easement. The respondents Javier, et al are the owners of the
building standing on their lot with windows overlooking the adjacent lot.
Respondents have claimed that they had acquired by prescription anenforceable easement of light and view arising from a verbal prohibition
to obstruct such view and light. The lower courts have ruled in their favor.
Note: easement of light and view is continuous and apparent so it is
subject to prescription.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the respondents Irene P. Javier, et al., own
building standing on their lot with windows overlooking the
had acquired by prescription an enforceable easement of
arising from a verbal prohibition to obstruct such view and
have been made upon petitioners predecessor-in-interest
the adjoining lot, both of which lots being covered by Torre
RULING: NO.
Art538s requirement is a formal act and not just any verb
act. Formal act contemplated in art538 in the OLD Civil C
an instrument acknowledged before a notary public. Prescnegative easement only begins when there is a notarial pr
dominant estate. Respondents could have not acquired th
prescription because they have not fulfilled this requireme
assuming they have acquired it, the easement no longer e
the properties were registered under the Torrens system w
annotation or registration of the said easement.
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
7/27
CORTES VS. YU-TIBO- NEGATIVE EASEMENT
A Notarial prohibition is required to start the running of prescription in a
negative easement.
FACTS:
Easement disputed here is the easement of light and view. Plaintiffs wife
has certain windows on her property which open on the adjacent lot. It
has been established that the plaintiffs hasnt done any formal act
prohibiting the owner of the house of the adjacent house prohibiting them
to make any improvements. Plaintiff claims that period of prescriptionstarted when those windows were made and acknowledge by the owner
of the adjacent lot. Defendant however claims that there should be a
formal act prohibiting them from doing a certain act to trigger the
prescriptive period.
ISSUE:
Whether or not plaintiffs have acquired the easement thro
prescription?
RULING: NO.
The Court clarified that mere act of opening one owns win
of dominion not of easement. The easement here is the (p
prohibition of creating any improvements on the property o
defendants (negative easement) that may impede or limit t
window. Thus, plaintiff is totally wrong in saying that presc
easement starts to kick in when the window was made and
by the adjacent owner. In fact, what is needed in this situa
act through a notarial prohibition so that prescriptive period
fact that the defendant has not covered the windows of the
plaintiff does not necessarily imply the recognition of the a
prescription of the alleged easement as this might just be
mere tolerance on the part of the defendant.
Plaintiffs asked for a rehearing but was again denied! Plain
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
8/27
about their windows and watersheds to be apparent easements, or just
projitiendi and jus spillitiendi. The court says that the plaintiffs are
obviously confused between the right exercised by owners and the rights
provided in easements.
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
9/27
ABELLANA VS. CA- EASEMENTS OF RIGHT OFWAY
Easements of right of way may not be acquired by prescription because it
is not a continuous easement.
FACTS:
Petitioners are owners of a parcel of land on the NW side of Nonoc
Subdivision, Cebu. They sued to establish an easement of a right of way
over a subdivision road, which they claim theyve acquired through
prescription since their ancestors have been using these since timeimmemorial.
They pray that the concrete wall surrounding the village be taken down to
allow easy access to the public highway.
RTC found for the petitioners. CA reversed, averring that road lots insubdivisions are private property and may only be used as a public
highway once acquired by the government through donatio
expropriation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the easement of a right of way may be acq
prescription?
HELD:
No. Art. 620 of the Civil Code provides that only continuou
easements may be acquired by prescription. The easemenway cannot be considered continuous because its use is a
is dependent on the acts of man.
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
10/27
RONQUILLO VS. ROCO- EASEMENT OF RIGHT OFWAY
Easements of right of way may not be acquired by prescription because it
is not a continuous easement.
FACTS:
Petitioners parcel of land was connected to the Naga Market Place and
Igualdad St. by an easement of a right of way through the land of the
Respondents, which they have been using for more than 20 years. On
May 1953, however, respondents built a chapel right in the middle of the
road, blocking their usual path to the marketplace. One year after, by
means of force, intimidation, and threats, the owners (respondents) of the
land where the easement was situated, planted wooden posts and fenced
with barbed wires the road, closing their right of way from their house to
Igualdad St. and Naga public market.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the easement of a right of way may be acq
prescription?
HELD: No.
Art. 620 of the CC provides that only continuous and appa
may be acquired by prescription. The easement of a right
be considered continuous because its use is at intervals a
dependent on the acts of man.
Minority Opinion (including the ponente):
Easements of right of way may already be acquired by preleast since the introduction into this jurisdiction of the spec
prescription through the Old Code of Civil Procedure, Act N
law, particularly, Section 41 thereof, makes no distinction a
rights which are subject to prescription, and there would a
valid reason, at least to the writer of this opinion, why the c
of a path or a road or right of way by the party, specially by
ten years or more, not by mere tolerance of the owner of t
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
11/27
through adverse use of it, cannot give said party a vested right to such
right of way through prescription.
The uninterrupted and continuous enjoyment of a right of way necessary
to constitute adverse possession does not require the use thereof every
day for the statutory period, but simply the exercise of the right more or
less frequently according to the nature of the use. (17 Am. Jur. 972)
"It is submitted that under Act No. 190, even discontinuous servitudes
can be acquired by prescription, provided it can be shown that the
servitude was actual, open, public, continuous, under a claim of title
exclusive of any other right and adverse to all other claimants'."
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
12/27
AMOR V. FLORENTINO- EASEMENT
FACTS:
Maria Florentino owned a house and a camarin (warehouse). By a will,
she transferred the house to Jose Florentino and the warehouse to Maria
Florentino. Maria sold the warehouse to Amor. Amor then demolished the
old warehouse in order to build a new 2-storey structure. The problem is it
will shut off the light and air that come in through the window of the
adjacent house owned by Jose. Hence the latter files for prohibition
claiming there is a negative easement prohibiting Amor from constructing
any structure at any height that would block the window. Amor counters
that there is no easement. Moreover, since the death of testator was
before the Civil Code took effect, the rules on easement do not apply.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there is an easement prohibiting Amor from doing said
construction.2. Whether or not the Civil Code may be applied
RULING:
1. Yes. Easement are established by law or by will of the o
title. Under Art. 624, there is title by the doctrine of appare
the estate is subsequently owned by two different personsservice (it cannot be an easement before the transfer) is
the title nor removed, an easement is established.
The Cortez case cannot be invoked by Amor because it in
acquisition by prescription. Art. 624 is acquisition by title.
2. Amor failed to prove that the death of the testator occur
effectivity of the Old Civil Code. The facts show that it hap
effectivity of the said code so the law on easement is alrea
In any case, even if we assume Amors supposition, the la
was already integrated into the Spanish Law and in fact, h
established by Jurisprudence.
Therefore, Amor is prohibitied from constructing the wareh
level of the window.
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
13/27
DISSENTING OPINION OF OZAETA.
1) The Majority opinio committed a travesty on justice when it ignored the
evidence produced by Amor that the testators death occurred before the
effectivity of the Code.
2) Hence, the law on easement will not apply. Moreover, the Spanish Law
and the Partidas provided for only three ways of acquiring easements: 1)
contract 2) testament 3) prescription. There was no provision similar to
the doctrine of apparent sign.
3) There is no doctrine established by the Spanish Tribunal regarding the
doctrine.
4) In this modern age of flourescent lights and air conditioning devices,
the easement of light and view would be obsolete and deterrent to
economic progress especially when in the cities, buildings are side to side
with each other.
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
14/27
AMOR V FLORENTINO
SYLLABUS
1. EASEMENTS; LIGHT AND VIEW AND "ALTIUS NON TOLLENDI";
REQUIREMENT UPON THE OWNER OF SERVIENT ESTATE; NEGATIVE AND
POSITIVE EASEMENTS. The easement of light and view and easement not to
build higher (altius non tollendi) go together because an easement of light and
view requires that the owner of the servient estate shall not build to a height
that will obstruct the window. They are, as it were, the two sides of the same
coin. While an easement of light and view is positive, that of altius non tollendi
negative.
2. ID.; MODES OF ESTABLISHING AND ACQUIRING EASEMENTS. According
to article 536, Civil Code, easements are established by law or by will of the
owners. Acquisition of easements is first by title or its equivalent and secondly
by prescription.
3. ID.; WHAT CHARACTERIZES ITS EXISTENCE. Under article 541 of the Civil
Code, the visible and permanent sign of an easement is the title that
characterizes its existence.
4. ID.; WHEN AN EASEMENT IS DEEMED CREATED; NOBODY C
EASEMENT OVER HIS OWN PROPERTY. The easement is no
division of the property, inasmuch as a predial or real easemen
rights in another's property, or jura in re aliena and nobody can
easement over his own property, nemini sua res servit.
5. ID.; REQUISITE OF EASEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 530 OF CIV
requisite of an easement as required by article 530 of the Civil C
there must be two proprietors one, of the dominant estate an
servient estate.
6. ID.; THE PRESENT CASE AND THAT OF CORTES vs. YU-TIB
DISTINGUISHED. The present case is distinguished from tha
Cortes vs. Yu-Tibo (2 Phil., 29), that in the latter it involved acqu
easement by prescription, while in the present case the questio
acquisition of easement by title, or its equivalent, under article
Code. While a formal prohibition was necessary in the former c
start the period of prescription, no such act is necessary in the
because of the existence of the apparent sign which is a suffici
to create the easement.
7. ID.; EASEMENT ENJOYED BY FORMER OWNER SUBSISTS A
OF ESTATE IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRACT TO THE CONTRA
estate is divided between different persons, and in the contract
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
15/27
about a mode of enjoyment different from that used by the original owner
thereof, the necessary easements for said mode of enjoyment are understood
to be subsisting.
8. ID.; LAW OF EASEMENT PRIOR TO CIVIL CODE IS THE SAME AS IN THE
LATTER. The same principle enunciated in article 541 of the Spanish Civil
Code was already an integral part of the Spanish law before the promulgation of
the Civil Code in 1889, and, therefore, even if the case should be governed by
the Spanish law prior to the Civil Code, the easement in question would also
have to be upheld.
9. ID.; PRESCRIPTIVE LAWS OF EASEMENT BEFORE AND AFTER THE CIVIL
CODE. The prescriptive period under the Partidas was 10 years between
persons who were present, and 20 years between absentees. (4 Manresa, 605.)
According to article 537 of the Civil Code, continuous and apparent easements
may be acquired by prescription for 20 years. Under sections 40 and 41 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, the period is 10 years.
10. ID.; RIGHTS OF PURCHASERS OF LAND BURDENED WITH APPARENT
EASEMENTS. Purchasers of lands burdened with apparent easements do not
enjoy the rights of third persons who acquire property, though the burden is
not recorded.
11. ID.; EASEMENTS EXIST SIDE BY SIDE WITH OWNERSHIP.
unlimited dominion is unthinkable because it would destroy an
inasmuch as proper enjoyment or property requires mutual ser
forbearance among the adjoining estates. It is thus that easeme
created by law or established by will of the parties, must perfor
side with ownership.
FACTS: It appears that over 50 years ago, Maria Florentino own
a camarin or warehouse in Vigan, Ilocos Sur. The house had an
the north side, three windows on the upper story, and a fourth o
ground floor. Through these windows the house receives light
lot where the camarin stands. On September 6, 1885, Maria Flor
will, devising the house and the land on which it is situated to G
Florentino, one of the respondents herein, and to Jose Florentiother respondents. In said will, the testatrix also devised the wa
lot where it is situated to Maria Encarnacion Florentino. Upon t
testatrix in 1892, nothing was said or done by the devisees in re
windows in question. On July 14, 1911, Maria Encarnacion Flor
lot and the warehouse thereon to the petitioner, Severo Amor, t
stating that the vendor had inherited the property from her aun
Florentino. In January, 1938, petitioner destroyed the old wareh
started to build instead a two-story house. On March 1st of that
respondents filed an action to prohibit petitioner herein from bu
than the original structure and from executing any work which
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
16/27
the light and air that had for many years been received through the four
windows referred to. The Court of First Instance found on the 15th of the same
month that the construction of the new house had almost been completed, so
the court denied the writ of preliminary injunction.
"Art. 541. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates,
established by the proprietor of both, shall be considered, if one of them is
alienated, as a title so that the easement will continue actively and passively,
unless at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary is
stated in the deed of alienation of either of them, or the sign is made to
disappear before the instrument is executed."
ISSUE/HELD: whether or not Article 541 applies to a division of property by
succession. AFFIRMATIVE. there is an implied contract between them that theeasements in question should be constituted.
RATIO DICIDENDI:
These two easements necessarily go together because an easement of light
and view requires that the owner of the servient estate shall not build to a
height that will obstruct the window. They are, as it were, the two sides of the
same coin. While an easement of light and view is positive, that of altius non
tollendi is negative. Clemente de Diego states that when article 538 speaks of
the time for the commencement of prescription for negative eas
refers to those negative easements which are the result and co
others that are positive, such as the easement not to build high
construct, which is indispensable to the easement of light."
It will thus be seen that under article 541 the existence of the ap
the instant case, to wit, the four windows under consideration,
purposes the same character and effect as a title of acquisition
of light and view by the respondents upon the death of the orig
Florentino. Upon the establishment of that easement of light an
concomitant and concurrent easement of altius non tollendi wa
constituted, the heir of the camarin and its lot, Maria Encarnaci
not having objected to the existence of the windows. The theorof making the existence of the apparent sign equivalent to a titl
to the contrary is said or done by the two owners, is sound and
because as it happens in this case, there is an implied contract
that the easements in question should be constituted.
If we do not apply article 541 of the Civil Code and we canno
because Maria Florentino died in 1885 there is really a gap in
respondents, but none in the case for the petitioner. 1 Under th
rather in the absence of an express provision therein similar to
petitioner should win; and since the parties litigant herein are e
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
17/27
their case decided in accordance with the pre-Civil Code legislation in force in
the Philippines as provided in the transitory provisions, since that legislation
without any "gap-filling" is in favor of the petitioner, and since to "fill the gap"
would prejudice him and unduly favor the respondents, the Court should
abstain from so doing as a matter of law and justice.
First, as to the modes of establishing and acquiring easements. According to
Article 536, easements are established by law or by will of the owners.
Acquisition of easements is first by title or its equivalent and secondly by
prescription. What acts take the place of title? They are mentioned in Articles
540 and 541, namely, (1) a deed of recognition by the owner of the servient
estate; (2) a final judgment; and (3) an apparent sign between two estates,
established by the owner of both, which is the case of article 541. Sanchez
Roman calls such apparent sign under article 541 "supletoria del tituloconstitutivo de la servidumbre."
standpoint of justice and public policy
When Maria Encarnacion Florentino, as one of of the devisees, accepted the
camarin and the lot, she could not in fairness receive the benefit without
assuming the burden of the legacy. That burden consisted of the service in fact
during the lifetime of the original owner, which service became a true easement
upon her death.
It is not just to allow Maria Encarnacion Florentino or her succe
to repudiate her own undertaking, implied, it is true, but binding
This easement is therefore a burden which Maria Encarnacion
her successor in interest willingly accepted. They cannot now m
any inconvenience consequent upon their own agreement.
During the construction of the new house by the petitioner, the
filed an action to stop the work. But petitioner continued the co
that when the Court of First Instance was ready to pass upon th
injunction, the work had almost been finished. Petitioner, there
complain if he is now ordered to tear down part of the new stru
to shut off the light from respondents' windows.
When petitioner bought this lot from the original coheir, Maria EFlorentino, the windows on respondents' house were visible. It
duty to inquire into the significance of those windows. Having f
he cannot now question the easement against the property whi
purchased.
VI
Recapitulating, we believe the easement of light and view has b
in favor of the property of respondents, for these reasons:
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
18/27
1. Maria Florentino having died in 1892, according to a finding of fact of the
Court of Appeals, which we cannot review, Article 541 of the Civil Code is
applicable to this case.
2. Granting, arguendo, that Maria Florentino died in 1885, nevertheless the
same principle embodied in article 541 of the Civil Code was already an integral
part of the Spanish law before the promulgation of the Civil Code in 1889, and
therefore, even if the instant case should be governed by the Spanish law prior
to the Civil Code, the easement in question would also have to be upheld.
3. The easement under review has been acquired by respondents through
prescription.
4. The petitioner was not an innocent purchaser, as he was in duty bound toinquire into the significance of the windows.
5. Justice and public policy are on the side of the respondents.
- See more at: http://studentsofsocrates.blogspot.com/2010/10/amor-v-
florentino.html#sthash.NM3xEGvb.dpuf
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
19/27
GARGANTOS V. CA- EASEMENT
FACTS:
Sanz was the previous owner of a land which he subdivided into several
lots. One lot was sold to Tengtio, whol sold to Uy Veza. Another lot with a
house constituted thereon was sold to Tan Yanon(PR). A third portion
with a warehouse was sold to Gargantos. The problem arose when latter
asked from the Municipality for a permit to demolish the warehouse in
order to construct a higher one. Yan Yung opposed for it would block his
window and impair his right of loght and view.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an easement was established
RULING:
Yes. Again, Art. 624 provides that when two adjoining estates wereformerly owned by one person who introduced improvements on both
such that the wall of the house contructed on the first estat
the wall of the warehouse on the second estate; and at the
sale of the first estate, there existed on the aforementione
house, doors, windows which serve as passages for light a
being no provision in the deed of sale that the easement o
will not be established, the apparent sign of easement betw
estates is established as a title.
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
20/27
VALDERRAMA V. THE NORTH NEGROS SUGARCO., INC.- EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY
What is prohibited by Art. 543 is that in extending the line or repairing or
using the same, a larger area of land is occupied or excavations or
materials deposited are outside the area occupied not by causing wagons
to pass just because of a change of ownership of the objects being
transported.
FACTS:
Several hacienda owners in Manapla, Occidental Negros, entered into a
milling contract with Miguel Osorio wherein the latter would build a sugar
central of a minimum capacity of 300 tons for the milling and grinding of
all the sugar cane to be grown by the hacienda owners who in turn would
furnish the central with all the cane they might produce in their estates for
30 years from the execution of the contract. Later on, Osorios rights and
interests were acquired by the North Negros Sugar Co., Inc.
2 years after, the current petitioners, Catalino Valderrama, EmilioRodriguez, Santos Urra et. al, made other milling contracts identical to
the first one with the North Negros Sugar, Co., Inc. The ha
however, could not furnish the central sufficient cane for m
required by its capacity, so the North Negros made other m
with the various hacienda owners of Cadiz, Occidental Ne
prompted Valderrama et. al to each file a complaint agains
The CFI entered 1 single judgment for all of them, ruling in
als favor finding that North Negros had no right to pass th
of the hacienda owners for the transportation of sugar can
from their lands. Thus the appeal to the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the easement of way established was rest
transporting only sugar cane from the hacienda owners la
HELD: NO
(the SC also made 1 judgment for all the 3 cases)
The contract entered into by each of the hacienda owners
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
21/27
clause that granted the North Negros an easement of way 7 meters wide
for the period of 50 years upon their properties for the construction of a
railroad. The owners allege ambiguity since it could permit the
transportation of sugar cane which they did not produce which is contrary
to their intent but the SC held that it is clear that the easement was
established for the benefit of all producers and of the corporation as it is
the intent of the milling contract.
Since the easement is a voluntary, apparent, continuous easement of
way in favor of the corporation, it is contrary to the nature of the contract
that it is only limited to canes produced by the servient estates since it is
a well settled rule that things serve their owner by reason of ownership
and not by reason of easement. The owners also cannot limit its use for
there is nothing in the contract prohibiting the central from obtaining other
sources.
Transporting cane from Cadiz also does not make it more burdensome
since what is prohibited in Art. 543 of the CC is that in extending the road
or in repairing it, it should occupy a greater area or deposit excavations
outside the granted 7 meters. This does not happen in this case when the
North Negros transports sugar cane from Cadiz, crossing
estates, since it continues to occupy the same area and th
is still the same regardless of the number of times it passe
estates.
Also the period of the easement is longer than the period o
contracts, so even if the owners no longer desire to furnish
canes for milling, the North Negros still has the right to the
the remaining period so the contention that it should be lim
canes produced by the owners has no basis.
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
22/27
JAVELLANA V. IAC- POSITIVE EASEMENT
When a positive easement is constituted, the servient owner is prevented
from impairing the use of such by the dominant estate.
FACTS:
Marsal & Co., Inc., and Marcelino Florete, Sr. is the present owner of the
land adjoining the Iloilo River up to the adjacent lot where the L. Borres
Elem. School is located. There existed a main canal from the Iloilo River
which passes through the Marsal property and thru a canal that traverses
the school property going towards Lot 2344. Marsal & Co. closed the dikeentrance and later on demolished the portions of the main dike
connecting the main canal to the canal running thru the school grounds.
This closure caused flooding in the premises of the school and its vicinity
because the canal serves as outlet of rain or flood water that empties into
the river. This prompted the school and barangay officials to complain to
higher authorities about the closure of the canal. When Florete was about
to bury a pipe in lieu of an open canal, he was prevented from doing soby the district supervisor, Javellana, thus he instituted a complaint for
recovery of damages for allegedly denying his access to th
canal to his property.
The RTC ruled in favor of Javellana thus Florete appealed
which reversed the decision thus the case at bar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an easement was established in favor of th
property
RULING: YES
A positive easement of water-right-of-way was constituted
of Florete as the servient estate in favor of the L. Borres E
School and the nearby lands as dominant estates since it
continuous use for no less than 15 years by the school fish
as by the nearby adjacent lands.
As a positive easement, Florete had no right to terminate t
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
23/27
canal without violating Art. 629 of the CC which provides that The owner
of the servient estate cannot impair, in any manner whatsoever, the use
of the servitude. Nevertheless if by reason of the place originally assigned
or of the manner established for the use of the easement, the same
should become very inconvenient to the owner of the servient estate, or
should prevent him from making any important works, repairs orimprovements thereon, it may be charged at his expense, provided he
offers another place or manner equally convenient and in such a way that
no injury is caused thereby to the owner of the dominant estate or to
those who may have a right to the use of the easement.
When Florete closed the entrance of the canal and demolished portions
of the main dike it impaired the use of the servitude by the dominant
estates.
Additional Facts:
> One witness almost drowned
> One witness saved a woman, who while picking shells fell into the canal
> 2 witnesses took a bath in the canal, 1 when he was still a child, the
other when he was still single
> Canal is used by residents for salt-making using plastic b
in competition with Marsal & Co. in the production of salt
> the canal is a source of salt water, it is fresh and clean s
changes from the Iloilo River while the fishpond is stagnan
> before the closure of the dikes, there were no floods in th
> tube to be buried: 10-inch rubber tube> canal:
o for the 1st 100 meters = 3 meters wide
o 200 meters = 2 meters
> depth of canal:
o high tide or rainy season = main canal = meter; ca
traverses school = 2 meters
o ordinary days = no water
> Florete only caused the canal to be deeper
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
24/27
BENEDICTO V. CA
25 SCRA 145
FACTS:Hendrick was the owner of a property which half of it was sold to Recto.An easement of way was annotated in the certificates of title.
Subsequently, the remaining half of the property was sold to Herras whothen closed and walled the part of land serving as easement of way.
HELD:The easement is perpetual in character and was annotated in all thecertificates of title. Absence of anything that would show mutualagreement to extinguish the easement, the easement persists.
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
25/27
TAEDO V BERNAD- EXTINGUISHMENT OFEASEMENT
An easement continues by operation of law. Alienation of the D and S
estates to different persons is not a ground for extinguishment of
easements absent a statement extinguishing it.
FACTS:
Antonio Cardenas (resp) is the original owner of 2 parcels of land (7501-A
and 7501-B). He constructed an apartment bldg in Lot A and in Lot B he
constructed an apartment, house, bodega and a septic tank for common
use of the occupants of the two lots.
Cardenas sold Lot A and mortgaged Lot B to Eduardo Taedo (pet). He
also agreed that should be decide to sell Lot B he would sell it to Taedo.
However, Cardenas sold Lot B to Spouses Sim (resp). Sim blocked the
sewage pipe connecting the building on Lot A to the septic tank. He also
asked Tanedo to remove that portion of his building encroaching Lot B.
Taedo filed an action for legal redemption and damages
Cardenas admitted that he had agreed to sell the lot to pet
by way of cross claim against spouses Sim that the Deed
executed was only intended as an equitable mortgage. RT
the complaint and the cross claim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the right to continue to use the septic tank
the subdivision of the land and its subsequent sale to diffe
RULING: NO.
The alienation of the dominant and servient estates to diffe
not one of the grounds for the extinguishment of an easem
contrary, use of the easement is continued by operation of
provided in Art 624 because no abolishment or extinguishm
provided in the deed of absolute sale. Nor did Cardenas st
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
26/27
the drain pipe and septic tanks before he sold the lots. Accordingly, the
spouses Sim cannot impair, in any manner, the use of the servitude.
-
7/27/2019 Property Week 11
27/27
ALCANTARA V. RITA
372 SCRA 364
FACTS:Petitioners filed a case for alleged violations of their right of first refusalunder PD1517, claiming to be urban lessees or tenants. The complaint
was dismissed from the finding that they are not lessees.
HELD:Where a person is allowed to construct his house on the land of anotherto facilitate gathering of fruits, this would be in the nature of a personaleasement.