Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

91 OBRA v. SPS.

BADUA et al

FACTS:

Respondents allege:
o

That their residential houses, erected on a lot commonly owned by them situated
in La Union, were located west of the properties of the Obras, Bucasases, and
Baduas

Their only access to the national highway was a pathway traversing the northern
portion of Resurreccion Obras property and the southern portion of the
properties of the Bucasases and Baduas

The pathway had been established as early as 1955

In 1995, however, Obra constructed a fence on the northern boundary of their


property, thus, blocking respondents access to the national highway

Respondents demanded the demolition of the fence, but Obra refused.

RTC: Dismissed the complaint. Respondents were not able to satisfy all the requisites
needed for their claim of an easement of right of way. When Obra fenced the northern
portion of her property, respondents were able to use another pathway as ingress and
egress to the highway, traversing the southern portion of Obras property. (2000 decision)

In 2001, Obra constructed a fence on the southern portion of her lot, which again
restricted the use of respondents new pathway.

Respondents filed a Motion to Enforce the 2000 decision. They alleged that the decision
of the RTC dismissing the case was based on the existence of a new pathway. Thus,
Obra was prohibited from closing said passage.

RTC: Granted. The dismissal of the complaint in 2000 depended on Obras representation that
she was allowing respondents to use the southern portion of her property as an alternative
pathway. This made the southern portion a voluntary easement of right-of-way which Obra should
respect. (2001 decision)
ISSUE: Can the RTC issue an order clarifying its 2000 decision, effectively establishing an
easement on Obras property? NO.

The dismissal of the case in 2000 meant that no easement was ever established on Obras
property. However, the trial court, by issuing its 2001 decision, effectively created a right-of-way
on Obras property in favor of respondents allegedly on the basis of a voluntary agreement
between the parties. This directive was in contravention of its 2000 decision. Thus, it was null and
void for having been issued outside of the courts jurisdiction. (immutability of judgment)

Nevertheless, the records of the 2000 case do not reveal any agreement executed by the parties
on the claimed right-of-way. Glaring is the fact that the terms of the arrangement were not agreed
upon by the parties, more particularly, the payment of the proper indemnity. The evidence is not
ample enough to support the conclusion that there was a verbal agreement on the right-of-way
over the southern portion.

Moreso, since a right-of-way is an interest in the land, any agreement creating it should be drawn
and executed with the same formalities as a deed to a real estate, and ordinarily must be in
writing. No written instrument on this agreement was adduced by respondents.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen