5/20/2018 Case Digest - PROPERTY
1/3
1. CRISPIN DICHOSO vs PATROCINIO L. MARCOSG.R. No. 180282 April
11, 2011
FACTS:
Crispin Dichoso fled a Complaint or Easement o Righto Way gainst
respondent Patrocinio L. Marcos.
Dichoso alleged that they claimed to have used aportion o Lot
No. !hich is o!ned "y Marcos since#$% as they had no access to a
pu"lic road to androm their property.
&hat Marcos "loc'ed the passage!ay !ith piles o sandand no!
they cannot use the road anymore althoughthey have "een granted
another passage!ay "y thespouses (rce.
Dichoso then prayed that they). May they "e granted more or less
an area o
*+ s,uare meters as right o !ay "y payingP*+-
. /e annotated on Marcos0 title1. Marcos pay them 1%- or (tty0s
ees and cost
o suit
Marcos Moved or the dismissal dismissal o thecomplaint on the
ground o lac' o cause o action andnon2compliance !ith the re,uisite
certifcate o non2orum shopping.
(n ocular inspection !as held and Motion to dismiss oMarcos !as
denied. R&C declared that Marcos0 ans!er ailed to tender an
issue and su"mitted the case or decision
RTC: rendered a decision in avor o petitioners)2Esta"lished the
re,uisites to 3ustiy an easement o right o !ay2Dichoso in good aith
as they e4pressed their !illingness topay proper indemnity
CA: reversed and set aside the R&C decision2Right o !ay had
already "een granted "y the 5other6 servientestate7 no need to
esta"lish an easement over respondent8sproperty2While the
alternative route through the property o the 9pouses(rce is longer
and circuitous7 said access road is ade,uate.
ISSU:C(N D:C;R(C&9)
>austo Preysler7 r. and his !ie o!ned lots in &ali
/each9u"division this su"division is o!ned "y >ar
EastEnterprises.
(side rom the su"division7 Preysler 9P9 also o!ns t!oparcels o
land ad3acent to the su"division.
>or the Preysler 9P9 ho!ever to gain access to the t!oparcels
o land ad3acent to the su"division7 they haveto pass through
&ali /each 9u"division.
With this Preysler 9P9 oGered P%7%%% or theeasement o right o
!ay "ut >ar East Enterprisesreused it or "eing grossly
inade,uate.
>ar East Enterprises "arricaded the ront gate oPreysler 9P9
property to prevent themrom using thesu"division roads to access
said lands.
Preysler 9P9 fled7 !ith the Regional &rial Court o
Nasug"u7 /atangas7 a Complaint or Right o Way !ithprayer or
preliminary prohi"itive in3unction against >arEast
Enterprises.
Tri"l Co(r+2 Rendered decision in avor o Preysler 9P9Writ o
preliminary in3unction !as issued
(ter years7 Preysler 9P9 developed their propertyad3acent to
&ali /each 9u"division.
>ar East Enterprises then moved to dissolve the !ritclaiming
that the petitioner violated its right topeaceul possession and
occupation o &ali /each9u"division !hen petitioner "rought in
heavye,uipment and construction materials to develop
hisproperty.
F"r "s+ #+rpriss Ar-(#+: >ar East Enterprises maintained that
the damages that
may "e caused to its property ar out!eigh the allegeddamages
sought to "e prevented "y the Preysler 9P9.
&hat there is an alternate route availa"le to
petitioner7particularly the "arangay road leading to /alaytigueand
the Cala"arBon Road.
Pr)slr SPS Ar-(#+:
(s'ed the court to clearly defne the action re,uired o>ar
East Enterprises to avert urther damage andinconvenience to
Preysler 9P9
that his contractors7 visitors7 and other representatives"e
allo!ed access and persons he has authoriBed "eallo!ed to install
po!er lines over Preysler 9P9property.
RTC: (mended the !rit no! allo!ingCA:9et aside the amended !rit
and reinstated the original !rit!ith modifcation as to the amount o
the "ond.MR:Denied
ISSU:
!hether the right o passage allo!ed in the uncontested
original!rit applies not only to the petitioner and his household7
"utalso to his visitors7 contractors7 construction !or'ers7
authoriBedpersons7 heavy e,uipment machinery7 and
constructionmaterials as !ell as the installation o po!er
lines.
HLD:
Preatorily7 !e note that !hat !as granted "y the trial court
!asthe preliminary in3unction7 and that the main case or right o!ay
has not yet "een settled. We have in previous cases# saidthat the
o"3ective o a !rit o preliminary in3unction is topreserve the
status ,uo until the merits o the case can "e ullyheard. 9tatus ,uo
is the last actual7 peacea"le and uncontestedsituation !hich
precedes a controversy.% &he Court o (ppeals!as correct in its
fndings that the last actual7 peaceul anduncontested situation that
preceded the controversy !as solelythe access o petitioner and his
household to his propertyoutside the su"division or visits and
inspections. (t the time the!rit !as applied or in ##*7 there !as
still no constructiongoing on in the property. :t !as merely ra!
land. &he use o thesu"division roads or ingress and egress o
construction !or'ers7heavy e,uipment7 delivery o construction
materials7 andinstallation o po!er lines7 are clearly not part o
the status,uo in the original !rit. (long this line7 the Court o
(ppeals
properly set aside the amended !rit and reinstated the
original!rit.
5/20/2018 Case Digest - PROPERTY
2/3
@nder (rticle H*H o the Ne! Civil Code7 i the right o !ay
isindispensa"le or the construction7 repair7 improvement7alteration
or "eautifcation o a "uilding7 a temporary easementis granted ater
payment o indemnity or the damage caused tothe servient estate. :n
our vie!7 ho!ever7 indispensa"le in thisinstance is not to "e
construed literally. =reat inconvenience issuIcient. :n the present
case7 the trial court ound thatirrespective o !hich route
petitioner used in gaining access tohis property7 he has to pass
private respondent0s su"division.
&hus !e agree that petitioner may "e granted a
temporaryeasement. &his temporary easement in the original !rit
diGersrom the permanent easement o right o !ay no! "eing tried
in
the main case.&he la! provides that temporary easement is
allo!ed only aterthe payment o the proper indemnity. (s there are
neithersuIcient allegations nor esta"lished acts in the record to
helpthis Court determine the proper amount o indemnity7 it is
"estto remand the case to the trial court or such
determination.(dditionally7 !e fnd that the installation o electric
po!er linesis a permanent easement not covered "y (rticle H*H.
(rticle H*Hdeals only !ith the temporary easement o passage.
Neithercan installation o electric po!er lines "e su"3ect to
apreliminary in3unction or it is not part o the status ,uo./esides7
more damage !ould "e done to "oth parties i thepo!er lines are
installed only to "e removed later upon acontrary 3udgment o the
court in the main case.W;ERE>(C&9)
Margarita Castro is o!ns a 1%s,m land in Manuela;omes Las Pinas
City.
Napoleon Monsod on the other hand7 o!ns a propertyin Moon!al'
illage !hich ad3oines the lot o MargaritaCastro.
( more or less t!o 56 meters high ence is !hat onlydivides
Manuela ;omes rom Moon!al' illage.
Napoleon Monsod7 caused the annotation o an adverseclaim against
si4ty2fve 5H*6 s,.m. o the property oMargarita Castro in Manuela
;omes. &he adverse claim!as fled !ithout any claim o o!nership
over the
property "ut 3ust asserting the e4isting legal easemento lateral
and su"3acent support at the rear portion ohis estate to prevent
the property rom collapsing7since his property is located at an
elevated plateau ofteen 5*6 eet7 more or less7 a"ove the level
opetitioner8s property. ( complaint or malicious mischieand
malicious destruction !as "eore the oIce o the"arangay chairman "y
Napoleon Monsod.
Margarita Castro fled a complaint or damages !ithtemporary
restraining orderK!rit o preliminaryin3unction "eore the Regional
&rial Court 5R&C6 o LasPias City. 9he also prayed that the
Register o Deedso Las Pias City "e ordered to cancel the annotation
othe adverse claim on her property.
M"r-"ri+"3s Ar-(#+:
&here !as a lea' that caused the ront portion o herhouse to
"e slippery7 she hired construction !or'ers tosee !here the lea'
!as coming rom &he !or'ers hadalready started digging !hen
police oIcers sent "yrespondent came and stopped the !or'ers
romfnishing their 3o"
When she "ought the property rom Manuela ;omes in##+7 there !as
no annotation or e4istence o anyeasement over the property.
Napoleon Monsod neither as'ed permission nor tal'edto her !ith
regard to the use o H* s,.m. o herproperty as easement.
RTC: :n avor or Margarita CastroAdverse claim of respondent was
non-registrable consideringthat the basis of his claim was an
easement and not an interest
adverse to the registered owner, and neither did he contest
thetitle of petitioner. Furthermore, the adverse claim of
respondent
failed to comply with the requisites provided under Section 70of
residential !ecree "o. #$%&.
CA:reversed the decision o the trial court'espondent(s adverse
claim could not be sanctioned because itdid not fall under the
requisites for registering an adverse claim,the same might be duly
annotated in the title as recognition ofthe e)istence of a legal
easement of sub*acent and lateralsupport. +he purpose of the
annotation was to preventpetitioner from maing in*urious
e)cavations on the sub*ectembanment as to deprive the residential
house and lot ofrespondent of its natural support and cause it to
collapse.'espondent only ased that petitioner respect the legal
easement already e)isting thereon
ISSU:W
