Easements - Okamas

7/23/2019 Easements - Okamas

1/19

Solid Manila v. Bio Hong Trading195 SCRA 748

DOCTRINES:1. Servitudes are merely accessories to the tenements 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.

2. The vendee of real property in which a servitude or easement exists, didnot acquire the right to close that servitude or put up obstructions thereon, to prevent thepublic from using it.

ACTS:Solid anila !orp. "petitioner# owns a parcel of land located in $rmita, anila. The same lies inthe vicinity of another parcel owned by %io &ong Trading "respondent#. The latter's title camefrom a prior owner, and in their deed of sale, the parties thereto reserved as an easement ofway approx. (1)sqm converted as a private alley for the benefit of the neighboring estates. *s aconsequence, an annotation was entered in the respondent's title. The petitioners and its

neighbors made use of the private alley and maintained and contributed to its up+eep.Thereafter, respondent constructed steel gates that precluded unhampered use. espondentfiled a case to remove said gates and to allow full access to the easement, which was granted.-n the !ourt of *ppeals, it was held that since respondent has acquired title to the property,merger/ brought about an extinguishment of the easement.

ISS!E:0hether the easement still exists or had been extinguished by merger

HE"D:The easement still exists on the property of %io &ong Trading.

-t is true that the sale did include the alley. n this score, the !ourt rejects the petitioner3scontention that the deed of sale 4excluded4 it, because as a mere right5of5way, it cannot beseparated from the tenement and maintains an independent existence. Thus6 *rt. 718.$asements are inseparable from the estate to which they actively or passively belong.

Servitudes are merely accessories to the tenements of which they form part.*lthough they arepossessed of a separate juridical existence, as mere accessories, they cannot, however, bealienated from the tenement, or mortgaged separately.

The fact, however, that the alley in question, as an easement, is inseparable from the main lot isno argument to defeat the petitioner3s claims, because as an easement precisely, it operates asa limitation on the title of the owner of the servient estate, specifically, his right to use "jus

utendi#. *s the petitioner indeed hastens to point out, the deed itself stipulated that 4a portionthereof 9of the tenement: measuring (1)sqm, more or less, had been converted into a privatealley for the benefit of the neighboring estates. . .4 and precisely, the former owner, in conveyingthe property, gave the private owner a discount on account of the easement.

&ence, and so we reiterate, albeit the private respondent did acquire ownership over theproperty ;; including the disputed alley ;; as a result of the conveyance, it did not acquire theright to close that alley or otherwise put up obstructions thereon and thus prevent the public


2/19

from using it, because as a servitude, the alley is supposed to be open to the public.

The !ourt is furthermore of the opinion, contrary to that of the !ourt of *ppeals, that no genuinemerger too+ place as a consequence of the sale in favor of the private respondent corporation.

*ccording to the !ivil !ode, a merger exists when ownership of the dominant and servientestates is consolidated in the same person. erger then, as can be seen, requires full

ownership of both estates. ne thing ought to be noted here, however. The servitude inquestion is a personal servitude, that is to say, one constituted not in favor of a particulartenement "a real servitude# but rather, for the benefit of the general public.


3/19

Ron#$illo v. Ro%o1&' ()il. 84

DOCTRINE:*n easement of right of way being discontinuous, cannot be acquired throughprescription but only by virtue of a title.

ACTS:aga !ity, from their residential land and bac+,for more than 2? years.

espondents oco and his men started constructing a chapel in the middle of the said right ofway construction actually obstructed the continuous exercise of the rights of the plaintiffs oversaid right of way. espondents also forcibly planted wooden posts, fenced with barbed wire andclosed the road passage way.

ISS!E:

0> an easement of right of way can be acquired thru prescription 55 >

HE"D:The dismissal was based on the ground that an easement of right of way though it may beapparent is, nevertheless, discontinuous or intermittent and, therefore, cannot be acquiredthrough prescription, but only by virtue of a title.

$asements may be !ontinuous or discontinuous, apparent or non5apparent, discontinuousbeing those used at more or less long intervals and which depend upon acts of man.!ontinuous and apparent easements are acquired either by title or prescription, continuous non5apparent easements and discontinuous ones whether apparent or not, may be acquired only byvirtue of a title. %oth anresa and Sanche@ oman are of the opinion that the easement of right

of way is a discontinuous one.


4/19

A*or v. lor+n,ino74 ()il. 4&4

ACTS:

aria Alorentino owned a house and a camarin "warehouse#. %y a will, she transferred the

house to Bose Alorentino and the warehouse to aria Alorentino. aria sold the warehouse to*mor. *mor then demolished the old warehouse in order to build a new 25storey structure. Theproblem is it will shut off the light and air that come in through the window of the adjacent houseowned by Bose. &ence the latter files for prohibition claiming there is a negative easementprohibiting *mor from constructing any structure at any height that would bloc+ the window.

*mor counters that there is no easement. oreover, since the death of testator was before the!ivil !ode too+ effect, the rules on easement do not apply.

ISS!ES:

1. 0hether or not there is an easement prohibiting *mor from doing said construction.2. 0hether or not the !ivil !ode may be applied

HE"D:

1. Ces. $asement are established by law or by will of the owners or by title.=nder *rt. 72), there is title by the doctrine of apparent sign. 0hen the estate issubsequently owned by two different persons and the service/ "it cannot be an easementbefore the transfer# is not revo+ed in the title nor removed, an easement is established.

The !orte@ case cannot be invo+ed by *mor because it involved acquisition by prescription.*rt. 72) is acquisition by title.

2. *mor failed to prove that the death of the testator occurred before the

effectivity of the ld !ivil !ode. The facts show that it happened after the effectivity of thesaid code so the law on easement is already applicable. -n any case, even if we assume*mor's supposition, the law on easement was already integrated into the Spanish Daw andin fact, had been established by Burisprudence.

Therefore, *mor is prohibitied from constructing the warehouse above the level of the window.


5/19

Al%an,ara v. Ri,a'7- SCRA '4

DOCTRINE6 !onstruction of a house on the lot of another to facilitate the utili@ation of usufruct

may constitute as personal easement pursuant to *rticle 71). "batasnatin#

ACTS6


6/19

o. 1F18 applies where the owner of the property intends to sell it to a third party.

Co/,a0+lla Cor. v. CA19' SCRA '''

DOCTRINE:*n easement of right of way is discontinuous and as such cannot be acquired by

prescription. !onvenience of the dominant estate is not a gauge for the grant of compulsaryright of way.

0hile a right of way is legally demandable, the owner of the dominant estate is not at liberty toimpose one based on arbitrary choice. =nder *rticle 7F? of the !ode, it shall be establishedupon two criteria6 "1# at the point least prejudicial to the servient estateG and "2# where thedistance to a public highway may be the shortest.

ACTS:J


7/19

and not mere convenience for the dominant estate to acquire such easement. *lso, theprivate respondents made no mention of their intention to indemnify the petitioners. TheS! also clarified that least prejudicial/ prevails over shortest distance/ "so shortestdistance isn't necessarily the best choice#.

2illan$+va v. 2+la/%o'4 SCRA 99


8/19

DOCTRINE:* legal easement is one mandated by law, constituted for public use or for privateinterest and becomes a continuing property right. *s a compulsory easement, it is inseparablefrom the estate to which it belongs as provided for *rticle 718 of the !ivil !ode.

ACTS:Lillanueva is currently registered owner of land that he bought from


9/19

*s regards Lillanueva's second argument, a decision in a case is conclusive and binding uponthe parties as well as to its successor in interest by title. -t is clear from the facts that the civilcase was decided almost four years before Lillanueva purchased the property. %eing thesuccessor in interest, the civil case decision binds Lillanueva.

3$i*+n v. CA-57 SCRA 1'

DOCTRINE:0here the easement may be established on any of several tenements surrounding


10/19

the dominant estate, the one where the way is shortest and will cause the least damage shouldbe chosen. &owever, as elsewhere stated, if these two "2# circumstances do not concur in asingle tenement, the way which will cause the least damage should be used, even if it will not bethe shortest.

ACTS:


11/19

dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables without an adequate outlet to a publichighwayG "b# the dominant estate is willing to pay the proper indemnityG "c# the isolation was notdue to the acts of the dominant estateG and, "d# the right of way being claimed is at a point leastprejudicial to the servient estate.

The criterion of least prejudice to the servient estate must prevail over the criterion of shortest

distance although this is a matter of judicial appreciation. 0hile shortest distance may ordinarilyimply least prejudice, it is not always so as when there are permanent structures obstructing theshortest distanceG while on the other hand, the longest distance may be free of obstructions andthe easiest or most convenient to pass through. -n other words, where the easement may beestablished on any of several tenements surrounding the dominant estate, the one where theway is shortest and will cause the least damage should be chosen. &owever, as elsewherestated, if these two "2# circumstances do not concur in a single tenement, the way which willcause the least damage should be used, even if it will not be the shortest.

*s between a right of way that would demolish a store of strong materials to provide egress to apublic highway, and another right of way which although longer will only require an avocado treeto be cut down, the second alternative should be preferred.

loro v. "l+nado-44 SCRA 71'


12/19

DOCTRINE:ne may not claim a legal easement merely out of convenience.

ACTS:J Aloro is the owner of the Aloro


13/19

DOCTRINE: The law ma+es it amply clear that an owner cannot, as respondent has done, byhis own act isolate his property from a public highway and then claim an easement of waythrough an adjacent estate.

ACTS:amos3 Dot O7?5* used to be a part of Dot O7? of the alinta $state. Dot O7? was owned by

!ornelia and Arisca Eila, and had a frontage along


14/19

enough to accommodate a truc+. The surveyor who at the instance of petitioner made a surveyof the premises on September 1H, 1(8H, shortly after amos had filed his complaint, verified theexistence of said passageway from the presence of tire mar+s found on the scene and indicatedon the s+etch plan he prepared the path that it too+ from said respondent3s Dot O7?5* throughDot O7?5% to


15/19

DOCTRINE: 0hen a land, originally public, is awarded to a private individual, a legal easementmay be constituted and thus no just compensation is required.

ACTS:n 2O Bune 1(7H, a free patent over three hectares of land situated in %arrio %aybayog,municipality of *lcala, province of !agayan, was issued in the name of respondent's

predecessor5in5interest, Licente anglapus and registered under a title in his name, subject toprovisions including conditions on public easements and servitudes recogni@ed and prescribedby law.

Subsequently, Eic+ anglapus "anglapus/# acquired the lot from Licente anglapus byabsolute sale.

n 1O Buly 1(8), the land was registered in espondent's name under Transfer !ertificate ofTitle >o. T5277FO of the egister of Eeeds for the ational -rrigation *uthority ">-*/# entered into a contract with LillamarEevelopment !onstruction. =nder the contract, >-* was to construct canals in *mulung,

!agayan and *lcala, !agayan. >-* then entered a portion of anglapus3 land and madediggings and fillings thereon.:

n 1) arch 1((1, anglapus filed with the egional Trial !ourt "the T!/#, Tuguegarao,!agayan a complaint for damages against >-*. anglapus alleged that >-*3s diggings andfillings destroyed the agricultural use of his land and that no reasonable compensation was paidfor its ta+ing. Eespite service of notice of the pretrial conference, >-* did not appear at the pre5trial conference.

n H Eecember 1((1, the trial court declared >-* in default and received anglapus3 evidenceex parteand on 2H Eecember 1((1, the T! rendered a decision in favor of anglapus.

n 28 Banuary 1((2, >-* filed a motion to lift the order of default dated H Eecember 1((1, and

to set aside the decision of 2H Eecember 1((1.

n H Bune 1((2, the T! issued a resolution denying the motion for lac+ of merit. Thus on 18Buly 1((2, >-* filed a notice of appeal to the !ourt of *ppeals "the !*/#.

n 28 Buly 1((2, the T! gave due course to the appeal and ordered the transmission of theoriginal records to the !*. anglapus subsequently filed a motion for execution of judgmentwith the T! which the >-* through the Solicitor Meneral opposed. n 18 *ugust 1((2, the trialcourt declared that since the notice of appeal of >-* was given due course, the motion forexecution was 4moot and academic.4

n O arch 1((), the !* dismissed the appeal hence this petition. The >-* contended that thecertificate of title covering the subject parcel of land contained a reservation granting the

government a right of way over the land covered therein.

ISS!E:0hether the >-* should pay anglapus just compensation for the ta+ing of a portion of hisproperty for use as easement of a right of way. 55 >

HE"D:The Supreme !ourt held that *rticle 71( of the !ivil !ode provides that, 4$asements areestablished either by law or by the will of the owners. The former are called legal and the latter


16/19

voluntary easements.4 -n the present case, we find and declare that a legal easement of a right5of5way exists in favor of the government. The land was originally public land, and awarded torespondent anglapus by free patent. The ruling would be otherwise if the land were originallyprivate property, in which case, just compensation must be paid for the ta+ing of a part thereoffor public use as an easement of a right of way.

En%arna%ion v. CA195 SCRA 74

ACTS:The servient estate of respondent heirs are what stands between the dominant estate and the


17/19

national road. 0hen the servient estate was not yet enclosed with a concrete fence, personsgoing to the national highway just crossed the servient estate at no particular point.

0hen a fence was constructed, a roadpath measuring 2F meters long and a meter wide wasconstituted to provide access to the highway, with one5half meter ta+en from the servient estateand another one5half from another lot.

petitioner is entitled to a widening of an already existing easement of right5of5way. 55 C$S

HE"D:Bust because the second egress is nearer to the highway by a difference of only 7F meters, arenot amount the conditions specified by *rticle 7)( of the !ivil !ode. 0hile there is a dried riverbed closer to the dominant tenement, that access is grossly inadequate. Menerally, the right ofway may be demanded6"1# when there is absolutely no access to a public highway, and "2#when, even if there is one, it is difficult or dangerous to use or is grossly insufficient.

The river bed route is traversed by a semi5concrete bridge and there is no ingress nor egressfrom the highway. Aor the jeep to reach the level of the highway, it must literally jump four to fivemeters up. Euring the rainy season, the river bed is impassable due to the floods. Thus, it canonly be used at certain times of the year. The river bed which ma+e passage difficult, if norimpossible, it is if there were no outlet at all. There is a real and compelling need for such

servitude in his favor.

*rticle 7F1 provides that the width of the easement of right of way shall be that which issufficient for the needs of the dominant estate, and may accordingly be changed from time totime./ -t is the needs of the dominant property which ultimately determine the width of thepassage, and these may vary from time to time. To force petitioner to leave his jeepney in thehighway, exposed to the elements and to the ris+ of theft simply because it could not passthrough the improvised pathway, is sheer pigheadedness on the part of the servient estate andcan only be counter5productive for all the people concerned.


18/19

specifically mentioned in the conveyance

ACTS:ueva $cija.


19/19

renunciation by the owner of the dominant lots.

ACTS:angyan road is a 1F5meter wide road abutting Ratipunan *venue on the west, traverses theedges of Da Lista Subdivision on the north and of the *teneo de anila =niversity andary+noll !ollege on the south. The said road was originally owned by the Tuasons who sold a

portion of their land to

Documents

Easements - Okamas