TOPIC: EASEMENT

Name of Dates Topic/Doctrine Cases

Student Covered

Vic Mondido January 20, Extinguishment of SPS. MANUEL AND

2010 Easement by Operation VICTORIA
of Law SALIMBANGON V
SPS. SANTOS AND
ERLINDA TAN

GR No. 185240
January 20, 2010

Lalaine Reyes February 2, Easement in General

2011
MARGARITA F.
CASTRO VS
NAPOLEAON A
MONSOD

GR NO. 183719
FEBRUARY 2,2011

Princess 2012 Easement in General LIWANAG vs. HAPPY

Charmine GLEN LOOP
Rodriguez HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
675 SCRA 744.
Chennie Nedia 2013 Compensation for the CABAHUG VS
monetary equivalent of NATIONAL POWER
the land if the easement CORPORATION, 689
is intended to SCRA 666 -
perpetually or JANUARY 30, 2013 -
indefinitely deprive the G.R. No. 186069
owner of his proprietary
rights

PILAR
DEVELOPMENT
Easement in general
CORPORATION VS
Right of the Owner of DUMADAG, 693
the Servient Estate SCRA 96 - MARCH

Proper Party in an 11, 2013 - G.R. No.

Easement Case 194336

CABAHUG VS
NATIONAL POWER
Easement of Right of
CORPORATION, 689
way
SCRA 666.

Mary Joy Navaja 2014 GNATIONAL POWER

CORPORATION, ,
 Easement of Right of vs.
Way FELICISIMO
TARCELO and HEIRS
OF COMIA
SANTOS, G.R. No.
198139 September
8, 2014

King Anthony 2015 easement of right of ALICIA B. REYES,

Perez way vs. SPOUSES
FRANCISCO S.
VALENTIN and
ANATALIA RAMOS;
G.R. No. 194488
February 11, 2015
Easement of right of REPUBLIC OF THE
way and expropriation PHILIPPINES
vs.
HEIRS OF
SATURNINO Q.
BORBON, AND
COURT OF
APPEALS. G.R. No.
165354
January 12, 2015;

NATIONAL
CORPORATION,
 vs. SOCORRO T.
POSADA, RENATO
BUENO, ALICE
BALIN, ADRIAN
TABLIZO, TEOFILO
TABLIZO, and LYDIA
T. OLIVO. G.R. No.
191945
March 11, 2015
Easement of natural SPS. FERNANDO
drainage of land, VERGARA and
easement on light and HERMINIA
view VERGARA,
vs. ERLINDA
TORRECAMPO
SONKIN. G.R. No.
193659 June
15, 2015
2016 Easement of right of HELEN CALIMOSO,
way MARILYN P.
CALIMOSO and LIBY
P. CALIMOSO,
vs.
AXEL D. ROULLO.
G.R. No. 198594.
January 25, 2016;

REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, vs.
SPOUSES
 ILDEFONSO B.
REGULTO and
FRANCIA R.
REGULTO. G.R. No.
202051. April 18,
2016

SPS. Manuel and Victoria Salimbangon v SPS. Santos and Erlinda Tan
GR No. 185240 January 20, 2010
TOPIC: Extinguishment of Easement by Operation of Law

 The existence of dominant estate and a servient estate is incompatible with the
idea that both estates belong to the same person.

MARGARITA F. CASTRO VS NAPOLEAON A MONSOD GR NO. 183719

FEBRUARY 2,2011

TOPIC: Easement in General

 An easement is established either by law or by will of the owners – an easement

or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of
another immovable belonging to a different owner. There are two kinds of
easements according to source. An easement is established either by law or by
will of the owners. The courts cannot impose or constitute any servitude where
none existed. They can only declare its existence if in reality it exists by law or by
the will of the owners. There are therefore no judicial easements.
 LIWANAG vs. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 675
SCRA 744., 2012

TOPIC: Easement in General

 Easements or servitudes are encumbrances imposed upon an immovable for the

benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner, for the benefit of a
community, or for the benefit of one or more persons to whom the encumbered
estate does not belong.
 The law expressly provides that open spaces in subdivision are reserved for
public use and are beyond the commerce of man. Id.

CABAHUG VS NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, 689 SCRA 666 - JANUARY

30, 2013 - G.R. No. 186069

TOPIC: Compensation for the monetary equivalent of the land if the easement is
intended to perpetually or indefinitely deprive the owner of his proprietary rights

 The owner should be compensated for the monetary equivalent of the land if the
easement is intended to perpetually or indefinitely deprive the owner of his
proprietary rights through the imposition of conditions that affect the ordinary use,
free enjoyment and disposal of the property or through restrictions and limitations
that are inconsistent with the exercise of the attributes of ownership, or when the
introduction of structures or objects which, by their nature, create or increase the
probability of of injury, death upon or destruction of life and property found on the
land is necessary.

PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS DUMADAG, 693 SCRA 96 - MARCH

11, 2013 - G.R. No. 194336

TOPIC: Easement in General , Right of the Owner of the Servient Estate, and Proper
Party in an Easement Case
  An easement or servitude is a real right on another’s property, corporeal and
immovable, whereby the owner of the latter must refrain from doing or allowing
somebody else to do or something to be done at his or her property, for the
benefit of another person or tenement; it is jus in re aliena, inseparable from the
estate to which it actively or passively belongs, indivisible, perpetual, and a
continuing property right, unless extinguished by causes provided by law.

 The owner of the servient estate retains the ownership of the portion on which
the easement is established, and may use the same in such a manner as not to
affect the exercise of the easement.
 Squatters have no possessory rights over the land intruded upon. The length of
time that may have physically occupied the land is immaterial; they are deemed
to have entered the same in bad faith, such that the nature of their posessession
is presumed to have retained the same character throughout their occupancy.
 As to the issue of who is the proper party entitled to institute a case with respect
to the 3-meter strip/zone, the Supreme Court d=finds and so holds that both the
Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General and the
local government of Las Pinas City, may file an action depending on the purpose
sought to be achieved. The former shall be responsible in case of action for
reversion under C.A. 141, while the latter may also bring an action to enforce the
relevant provisions of Republic Act No. 7279 (otherwise known as the Urban
Development and housing Act of 1992).

CABAHUG VS NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, 689 SCRA 666, 2013.

TOPIC: Easement of Right of way

 The owner should be compensated for the monetary equivalent of the land if the
easement is intended to perpetually or indefinitely deprive the owner of his
proprietary rights through the imposition of conditions that affect the ordinary use,
 free enjoyment and disposal of the property or through restrictions and limitations
that are inconsistent with the exercise of the attributes of ownership, or when the
introduction of structures or objects which, by their nature, create or increase the
probability of injury, death upon or destruction of life and property found on the
land is necessary.

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, vs. FELICISIMO TARCELO and HEIRS OF

COMIA SANTOS, .G.R. No. 198139, September 8, 2014

TOPIC: Right of Way Easement

 Upon payment of just compensation to the defendants, subject to the deductions

of the sums due the Government for unpaid real estate taxes and other imposts,
the plaintiff shall have a lawful right to enter, take possession and acquire
easement of right-of-way over the portions of the properties together with the
improvements sought to be expropriated for the purpose stated, free from any
and all liens and encumbrances.

ALICIA B. REYES vs. SPOUSES FRANCISCO S. VALENTIN and ANATALIA

RAMOS; G.R. No. 194488 February 11, 2015

TOPIC: Compulsory easement of right of way

 The issue of ownership is irrelevant to the case; filing of a complaint for

easement is a recognition of the servient property owner’s rights. Petitioner does
not question the ownership or the registration of respondents’ title over the
property. We are limited to the issue of petitioner’s easement rights. On that
matter, petitioner’s act of filing a complaint for easement of right of way is an
acknowledgement that the property is owned by respondents. It is tantamount to
a waiver of whatever right or claim of ownership petitioner had over the property.
  The aspect of necessity may not be specifically included in the requisites for the
grant of compulsory easement under the Civil Code. However, this goes into the
question of "least prejudice." An easement of right of way imposes a burden on a
property and limits the property owner’s use of that property. The limitation
imposed on a property owner’s rights is aggravated by an apparent lack of
necessity for which his or her property will be burdened.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HEIRS OF SATURNINO Q. BORBON, AND

COURT OF APPEALS. G.R. No. 165354 January 12, 2015

TOPIC: EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY and EXPROPRIATION

 The expropriator who has taken possession of the property subject of
expropriation is obliged to pay reasonable compensation to the landowner for the
period of such possession although the proceedings had been discontinued on
the ground that the public purpose for the expropriation had meanwhile ceased.

NATIONAL CORPORATION, vs. SOCORRO T. POSADA, RENATO BUENO, ALICE

BALIN, ADRIAN TABLIZO, TEOFILO TABLIZO, and LYDIA T. OLIVO. G.R. No.
191945 March 11, 2015
TOPIC: EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY and EXPROPRIATION

 When the taking of private property is no longer for a public purpose, the
expropriation complaint should be dismissed by the trial court. The case will
proceed only if the trial court's order of expropriation became final and executory
and the expropriation causes prejudice to the property owner.

SPS. FERNANDO VERGARA and HERMINIA VERGARA vs. ERLINDA

TORRECAMPO SONKIN. G.R. No. 193659 June 15, 2015

TOPIC: easement of natural drainage of land, easement on light and view

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the Sonkin property is lower in elevation than the
Vergara property, and thus, it is legally obliged to receive the waters that flow from the
latter, pursuant to Article 637 of the Civil Code: xxx the owner of the lower estate cannot
construct works which will impede this easement; neither can the owner of the higher
estate make works which will increase the burden.

In this light, Sps. Sonkin should have been aware of such circumstance and,
accordingly, made the necessary adjustments to their property so as to minimize the
burden created by such legal easement. Instead of doing so, they disregarded the
easement and constructed their house directly against the perimeter wall which adjoins
the Vergara property, thereby violating the National Building Code in the process,
specifically Section 708 (a) thereof which reads: The dwelling shall occupy not more
than ninety percent of a corner lot and eighty percent of an inside lot, and subject to the
provisions on Easement on Light and View of the Civil Code of the Philippines, shall be
at least 2 meters from the property line.

While the proximate cause of the damage sustained by the house of Sps. Sonkin was
the act of Sps. Vergara in dumping gravel and soil onto their property, thus, pushing the
perimeter wall back and causing cracks thereon, as well as water seepage, the former
is nevertheless guilty of contributory negligence for not only failing to observe the two
(2)-meter setback rule under the National Building Code, but also for disregarding the
legal easement constituted over their property. As such, Sps. Sonkin must necessarily
and equally bear their own loss.

HELEN CALIMOSO, MARILYN P. CALIMOSO and LIBY P. CALIMOSO, vs. AXEL D.

ROULLO. G.R. No. 198594. January 25, 2016

 Article 650 of the Civil Code provides that the easement of right-of-way shall be
established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as
consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public
highway may be the shortest. Under this guideline, whenever there are several
tenements surrounding the dominant estate, the right-of-way must be established
on the tenement where the distance to the public road or highway is
shortest and where the least damage would be caused. If these two criteria
(shortest distance and least damage) do not concur in a single tenement, we
have held in the past that the least prejudice criterion must prevail over the
shortest distance criterion.
 In this case, the establishment of a right-of-way through the petitioners’ lot would
cause the destruction of the wire fence and a house on the petitioners’
property. Although this right-of-way has the shortest distance to a public road, it
is not the least prejudicial considering the destruction pointed out, and that an
option to traverse two vacant lots without causing any damage, albeit longer, is
available.

 We have held that "mere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is
required by law as the basis of setting up a compulsory easement;" that "a longer
way may be adopted to avoid injury to the servient estate, such as when there
are constructions or walls which can be avoided by a round-about way.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. SPOUSES ILDEFONSO B. REGULTO and

FRANCIA R. REGULTO. G.R. No. 202051. April 18, 2016

TOPIC: Easement of right of way

 A legal easement of right-of-way exists in favor of the Government over land that
was originally a public land awarded by free patent even if the land is
subsequently sold to another. It would be otherwise if the land was originally a
private property, to which just compensation must be paid for the taking of a part
thereof for public use as an easement of right-of-way.