Plaintiff: North Negros Sugar Co

Defendant: Hidalgo
Ponente: Recto

FACTS:
 Plaintiff is the owner of a sugar central (known as “mill site”) and also its
adjoining plantation Hacienda “Begona”. He constructed a road adjoining
the “mill site” and the provincial highway. Plaintiff allows vehicles to pass
upon paying toll charge of P0.15 for each one; pedestrians are allowed
free passage.
 Defendant owns the adjoining “Hacienda Sangay” wherein he has a billiard
hall and a tuba saloon (as in drinking place). The road of the plaintiff is the
only means of access to get to Hacienda Sangay.
 At one point, plaintiff stopped defendant from using the said road. Hence,
instead of taking the road to get to his Hacienda Sangay, defendant
passed through Hacienda Begona in a passageway used by the carabaos.
 Plaintiff applied for injunction to restrain the defendant from
entering/passing through his properties (road & Hacienda).

ISSUE:
WON injunction should be granted.
HELD: NO.

RATIO:
 For injunction to be granted, it must be established that the right sought
to be protected exists, but also that the acts against which the injunction
to be directed are violative of said right.
 In the case at bar, plaintiff failed to establish his right and that the
defendant has committed/attempts to commit acts that endanger such
right. The complaint does not state how and why the mere passage of
defendant over plaintiff’s estate conveying “tuba” to his Hacienda has
caused damage to plaintiff’s property rights. The real damage that the
plaintiff seeks to avoid is the fact that tuba is disposed of at defendant’s
hacienda in which the plaintiff’s laborers have access (apparently, the
plaintiff hates that his laborers are getting drunk in the tuba saloon of the
defendant). This however, is a nothing more than an exercise of legitimate
business on the part of the defendant. What the law does not authorize to
be done directly, cannot be done indirectly (if plaintiff cannot enjoin
defendant from selling tuba, neither can it obtain injunction to prevent him
from passing over its property to transport tuba).
 (TOPICAL: on mode of acquiring easements): The road was constructed by
the plaintiff on his own land and it made this road accessible to the public,
regardless of class/group of persons/entities. This is a voluntary
easement constituted in favor of the community. Indeed, the plaintiff
may close the road at its pleasure as no period has been fixed when the
easement was constituted, but while the road is still open, he may not
capriciously exclude defendant from its use. Having the road devoted to
the public in general, the road is charged with public interest and while so
 devoted, the plaintiff may not establish discriminatory exceptions against
any private person. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing its use,
but so long as he maintains it, he must submit to the control.
 Furthermore there exists a forcible right of way in favor of the defendant
(CC 564) because those living in Hacienda Sangay have no access to the
provincial road except through the road in question.