Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
194336 March 11, 2013 x x x The land title of [petitioner] only proves that it is the
owner in fee simple of the respective real properties described
PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, therein, free from all liens and encumbrances, except such as
vs. may be expressly noted thereon or otherwise reserved by law
RAMON DUMADAG, EMMA BACABAC, RONALDO x x x. And in the present case, what is expressly reserved is
NAVARRO, JIMMY PAGDALIAN, PAY DELOS what is written in TCT No. T-481436, to wit "that the 3.00
SANTOS, ARMANDO TRILLOS, FELICISIMO meter strip of the lot described herein along the Mahabang
TRILLOS, ARCANGEL FLORES, EDDIE MARTIN, Ilog Creek is reserved for public easement purposes. (From
PRESILLA LAYOG, CONRADO CAGUYONG, GINA OCT 1873/A-50) and to the limitations imposed by Republic
GONZALES, ARLENE PEDROSA, JOCELYN Act No. 440. x x x"8
ABELINO, ROQUE VILLARAZA, ROLANDO
VILLARAZA, CAMILO GENOVE, NILDA ROAYANA, The trial court opined that respondents have a better right to
SUSAN ROAYANA, JUANCHO PANGANIBAN, BONG possess the occupied lot, since they are in an area reserved for
DE GUZMAN, ARNOLD ENVERSO, DONNA DELA public easement purposes and that only the local government
RAZA, EMELYN HAGNAYA, FREDDIE DE LEON, of Las Piñas City could institute an action for recovery of
RONILLO DE LEON, MARIO MARTINEZ, and PRECY possession or ownership.
LOPEZ, Respondents.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was
DECISION denied by the trial court in its Order dated August 21,
2007.9 Consequently, petitioner elevated the matter to the
PERALTA, J.: Court of Appeals which, on March 5, 2010, sustained the
Challenged in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule dismissal of the case.
45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure are the March 5, 2010 Referring to Section 210 of Administrative Order (A.O.) No.
Decision1 and October 29, 2010 Resolution2 of the Court of 99-21 of the Department of Environment and Natural
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 90254, which affirmed the Resources (DENR), the appellate court ruled that the 3-meter
May 30, 2007 Decision3 of the Las Piñas Regional Trial Court, area being disputed is located along the creek which, in turn, is
Branch 197 (trial court) dismissing the complaint filed by a form of a stream; therefore, belonging to the public
petitioner. dominion. It said that petitioner could not close its eyes or
On July 1, 2002, petitioner filed a Complaint4 for accion ignore the fact, which is glaring in its own title, that the 3-
publiciana with damages against respondents for allegedly meter strip was indeed reserved for public easement. By
building their shanties, without its knowledge and consent, in relying on the TCT, it is then estopped from claiming
its 5,613-square-meter property located at Daisy Road, Phase ownership and enforcing its supposed right. Unlike the trial
V, Pilar Village Subdivision, Almanza, Las court, however, the CA noted that the proper party entitled to
seek recovery of possession of the contested portion is not the
Piñas City. It claims that said parcel of land, which is duly City of Las Piñas, but the Republic of the Philippines, through
registered in its name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), pursuant to Section
481436 of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal, was 10111 of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 (otherwise
designated as an open space of Pilar Village Subdivision known as The Public Land Act).
intended for village recreational facilities and amenities for
subdivision residents.5 In their Answer with The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied
Counterclaim,6 respondents denied the material allegations of by the CA per Resolution dated October 29, 2010, hence, this
the Complaint and briefly asserted that it is the local petition.
government, not petitioner, which has jurisdiction and Anchoring its pleadings on Article 63012 of the Code,
authority over them. petitioner argues that although the portion of the subject
Trial ensued. Both parties presented their respective witnesses property occupied by respondents is within the 3-meter strip
and the trial court additionally conducted an ocular inspection reserved for public easement, it still retains ownership thereof
of the subject property. since the strip does not form part of the public dominion. As
the owner of the subject parcel of land, it is entitled to its
On May 30, 2007, the trial court dismissed petitioner’s lawful possession, hence, the proper party to file an action for
complaint, finding that the land being occupied by respondents recovery of possession against respondents conformably with
are situated on the sloping area going down and leading Articles 42813 and 53914 of Code.
towards the Mahabang Ilog Creek, and within the three-meter
legal easement; thus, considered as public property and part of We deny.
public dominion under Article 5027 of the New Civil Code An easement or servitude is a real right on another's property,
(Code), which could not be owned by petitioner. The court corporeal and immovable, whereby the owner of the latter
held: must refrain from doing or allowing somebody else to do or
something to be done on his or her property, for the benefit of
another person or tenement; it is jus in re aliena, inseparable The strip shall be preserved and shall not be subject to
from the estate to which it actively or passively belongs, subsequent subdivision. (Underscoring supplied)
indivisible, perpetual, and a continuing property right, unless
extinguished by causes provided by law.15 The Code defines Certainly, in the case of residential subdivisions, the allocation
easement as an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for of the 3-meter strip along the banks of a stream, like the
the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different Mahabang Ilog Creek in this case, is required and shall be
owner or for the benefit of a community, or of one or more considered as forming part of the open space requirement
persons to whom the encumbered estate does not pursuant to P.D. 1216 dated October 14, 1977.20 Said law is
belong.16 There are two kinds of easement according to source: explicit: open spaces are "for public use and are, therefore,
by law or by will of the owners – the former are called legal beyond the commerce of men" and that "[the] areas reserved
and the latter voluntary easement.17 A legal easement or for parks, playgrounds and recreational use shall be non-
compulsory easement, or an easement by necessity constituted alienable public lands, and non-buildable."
by law has for its object either public use or the interest of Running in same vein is P.D. 1067 or The Water Code of the
private persons.18 Philippines21 which provides:
While Article 630 of the Code provides for the general rule Art. 51. The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the
that "the owner of the servient estate retains the ownership of seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone
the portion on which the easement is established, and may use of three (3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in
the same in such a manner as not to affect the exercise of the agricultural areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along
easement," Article 635 thereof is specific in saying that "all their margins, are subject to the easement of public use in the
matters concerning easements established for public or interest of recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage.
communal use shall be governed by the special laws and No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than
regulations relating thereto, and, in the absence thereof, by the what is necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing
provisions of this Title Title VII on Easements or Servitudes." or salvage or to build structures of any kind. (Underscoring
In the case at bar, the applicability of DENR A.O. No. 99-21 supplied)
dated June 11, 1999, which superseded DENR A.O. No. 97- Thus, the above prove that petitioner’s right of ownership and
0519 dated March 6, 1997 and prescribed the revised guidelines possession has been limited by law with respect to the 3-meter
in the implementation of the pertinent provisions of Republic strip/zone along the banks of Mahabang Ilog Creek. Despite
Act (R.A.) No. 1273 and Presidential Decree (P.D.) Nos. 705 this, the Court cannot agree with the trial court’s opinion, as to
and 1067, cannot be doubted. Inter alia, it was issued to which the CA did not pass upon, that respondents have a
further the government’s program of biodiversity preservation. better right to possess the subject portion of the land because
Aside from Section 2.1 above-quoted, Section 2.3 of which they are occupying an area reserved for public easement
further mandates: purposes. Similar to petitioner, respondents have no right or
2.3 Survey of Titled Lands: title over it precisely because it is public land. Likewise, we
repeatedly held that squatters have no possessory rights over
2.3.1 Administratively Titled Lands: the land intruded upon.22 The length of time that they may
have physically occupied the land is immaterial; they are
The provisions of item 2.1.a and 2.1.b shall be observed as the deemed to have entered the same in bad faith, such that the
above. However, when these lands are to be subdivided, nature of their possession is presumed to have retained the
consolidated or consolidated-subdivided, the strip of three (3) same character throughout their occupancy.23
meters which falls within urban areas shall be demarcated and
marked on the plan for easement and bank protection. As to the issue of who is the proper party entitled to institute a
case with respect to the 3-meter strip/zone, We find and so
The purpose of these strips of land shall be noted in the hold that both the Republic of the Philippines, through the
technical description and annotated in the title. OSG and the local government of Las Piñas City, may file an
xxxx action depending on the purpose sought to be achieved. The
former shall be responsible in case of action for reversion
2.3.3 Complex Subdivision or Consolidation Subdivision under C.A. 141, while the latter may also bring an action to
Surveys for Housing/Residential, Commercial or Industrial enforce the relevant provisions of Republic Act No. 7279
Purposes: (otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act
of 1992).24 Under R.A. 7279, which was enacted to uplift the
When titled lands are subdivided or consolidated-subdivided
living conditions in the poorer sections of the communities in
into lots for residential, commercial or industrial purposes the
urban areas and was envisioned to be the antidote to the
segregation of the three (3) meter wide strip along the banks of
pernicious problem of squatting in the metropolis,25 all local
rivers or streams shall be observed and be made part of the
government units (LGUs) are mandated to evict and demolish
open space requirement pursuant to P.D. 1216.
persons or entities occupying danger areas such as esteros,
railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines,
waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, ALICIA B. REYES, Petitioner,
parks, and playgrounds.26 Moreover, under pain of vs.
administrative and criminal liability in case of non- SPOUSES FRANCISCO S. VALENTIN and ANATALIA
compliance,27 it obliges LGUs to strictly observe the RAMOS, Respondents.
following:
DECISION
Section 29. Resettlement. - Within two (2) years from the
effectivity of this Act, the local government units, in LEONEN, J.:
coordination with the National Housing Authority, shall This is a Rule 45 Petition1 of the Court of Appeals
implement the relocation and resettlement of persons living in Decision2 dated August 12, 2010 and of the Court of Appeals
danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, Resolution3 dated October 28, 2010.
riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and in other public places
such as sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds. The local On March 28, 2006, petitioner Alicia B. Reyes, through
government unit, in coordination with the National Housing Dolores B. Cinco,4 filed a Complaint5 before the Regional
Authority, shall provide relocation or resettlement sites with Trial Court of Maloles, Bulacan, for easement of right ofway
basic services and facilities and access to employment and against respondents, Spouses Francisco S. Valentin and
livelihood opportunities sufficient to meet the basic needs of Anatalia Ramos.6
the affected families.1âwphi1
In her Complaint before the Regional Trial Court, petitioner
Section 30. Prohibition Against New Illegal Structures. - It alleged that she was the registered owner of a 450-square-
shall be unlawful for any person to construct any structure in meter parcel of land in Barangay Malibong Bata, Pandi,
areas mentioned in the preceding section. After the effectivity Bulacan, designated as Lot No. 3-B-12 and covered by TCT
of this Act, the barangay, municipal or city government units No. T-343642-(M).7 The property used to be a portion of Lot
shall prevent the construction of any kind or illegal dwelling No. 3-B8 and was surrounded by estates belonging to other
units or structures within their respective localities. The head persons.9 Petitioner also alleged that respondents’ 1,500-
of any local government unit concerned who allows, abets or square-meter property surrounded her property, and that it was
otherwise tolerates the construction of any structure in the only adequate outlet from her property to the highway.10 A
violation of this section shall be liable to administrative 113-square-meter portion of respondents’ property was also
sanctions under existing laws and to penal sanctions provided the "point least prejudicial to the [respondents]."11 The
for in this Act. easement sought was the vacant portion near the boundary of
respondents’ other lot.12
Yet all is not lost for petitioner. It may properly file an action
for mandamus to compel the local government of Las Piñas
City to enforce with reasonable dispatch the eviction,
demolition, and relocation of respondents and any other
persons similarly situated in order to give flesh to one of the
avowed policies of R.A. 7279, which is to reduce urban
dysfunctions, particularly those that adversely affect public
health, safety, and ecology.28
SO ORDERED.
On the other hand, respondents alleged that the isolation was 4. The proposed easement of right of way is established at the
due to the acts of petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest. She point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as
allegedly subdivided the property in favor of her children, consistent with this rule, where the distance of the dominant
including petitioner, without regard to the pending dispute estate to a public highway may be the shortest.
over the property. If the latter is true, petitioner could not An easement of right of way is a real right. When an easement
claim any right to compulsory easement even if it was not she of right of way is granted to another person, the rights of the
who caused the property’s isolation. Petitioner is bound by her property’s owner are limited.59 An owner may not exercise
some of his or her property rights for the benefit of the person
who was granted the easement of right of way. Hence, the more or less four-meter wide irrigation before reaching the
burden of proof to show the existence of the above conditions said public road.
is imposed on the person who seeks the easement of right of
way.60 In order to confirm if there is indeed another existing public
road which is nearer to plaintiff’s property, the undersigned
We agree with the Regional Trial Court’s and the Court of together with the above-mentioned court personnel and the
Appeals’ findings that petitioner failed to establish that there parties and their respective counsel, proceeded to the said
was no adequate outlet to the public highway and that the place. True enough, there is a public road also named Brgy.
proposed easement was the least prejudicial to respondents’ Malibong Bata public road, fronting plaintiff’s property.
estate. However, there is more or less four-meter wide irrigation
before reaching the said public road. It was also confirmed
There is an adequate exit to a public highway. that the two properties of the plaintiff are between the public
This court explained in Dichoso, Jr. v. Marcos61 that the road which is adjacent to the irrigation. Atty. Sali manifested
convenience of the dominant estate’s owner is not the basis for that they already requested before the officers of the National
granting an easement of right of way, especially if the owner’s Irrigation Administration (NIA) for the grant of the right of
needs may be satisfied without imposing the easement.62 Thus: way but the same was disapproved. Atty. Batalla pointed out
that there are already some concrete bridges nearby the
Mere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is properties of the plaintiff.64
required by law as the basis of setting up a compulsory
easement. Even in the face of necessity, if it can be satisfied Based on the Ocular Inspection Report, petitioner’s property
without imposing the easement, the same should not be had another outlet to the highway. In between her property and
imposed. the highway or road, however, is an irrigation canal, which
can be traversed by constructing a bridge, similar to what was
.... done by the owners of the nearby properties.
Also in Floro v. Llenado, we refused to impose a right of way There is, therefore, no need to utilize respondents’ property to
over petitioner’s property although private respondent’s serve petitioner’s needs. Another adequate exit exists.
alternative route was admittedly inconvenient because he had Petitioner can use this outlet to access the public roads.
to traverse several ricelands and rice paddies belonging to
different persons, not to mention that said passage is The outlet referred to in the Ocular Inspection Report may be
impassable during the rainy season. longer and more inconvenient to petitioner because she will
have to traverse other properties and construct a bridge over
And in Ramos, Sr. v. Gatchalian Realty, Inc., this Court the irrigation canal before she can reach the road. However,
refused to grant the easement prayed for even if petitioner had these reasons will not justify the imposition of an easement on
to pass through lots belonging to other owners, as temporary respondents’ property because her convenience is not the
ingress and egress, which lots were grassy, cogonal, and gauge in determining whether to impose an easement of right
greatly inconvenient due to flood and mud because such grant of way over another’s property.65 Petitioner also failed to
would run counter to the prevailing jurisprudence that mere satisfy the requirement of "least prejudicial to the servient
convenience for the dominant estate does not suffice to serve estate."
as basis for the easement.63 (Citations omitted) Access to the
public highway can be satisfied without imposing an easement Article 650 of the Civil Code provides that in determining the
on respondents’ property. existence of an easement of right of way, the requirement of
"least prejudic[e] to the servient estate" trumps "distance
The Ocular Inspection Report reads, in part: [between] the dominant estate [and the] public highway."
"Distance" is considered only insofar as it is consistent to the
Upon reaching the said place, pictures were taken in the
requirement of "least prejudice."
presence of both parties and their respective counsel. The
undersigned observed that fronting the lot where the house of This court had already affirmed the preferred status of the
the defendant is erected, is Brgy. Malibong Bata public road. requirement of "least prejudice" over distance of the dominant
The property of the plaintiff is located at the back of estate to the public highway.66 Thus, in Quimen, this court
defendant’s lot. Plaintiff, through her counsel, requested that granted the longer right of way over therein respondent’s
the side portion of defendants’ lot where the latter’s garage property because the shorter route required that a structure of
and a grotto are erected or a portion of defendants’ newly strong materials needed to be demolished.67 This court said:
acquired adjacent lot be the right of way. This was objected to
by Atty. Batalla arguing that to grant the same is more [T]he court is not bound to establish what is the shortest
prejudicial to the defendants considering that the distance; a longer way may be adopted to avoid injury to the
improvements thereon will be affected and that there is servient estate, such as when there are constructions or walls
another existing public road which is nearer to the plaintiff’s which can be avoided by a round about way, or to secure the
property. Atty. Sali admitted that there is another existing interest of the dominant owner, such as when the shortest
public road but the right of way cannot be done as there is distance would place the way on a dangerous decline.
.... Wherefore, this office could not negate such
decision.72 However, request for grant of right of way for the
The criterion of least prejudice to the servient estate must construction of bridge over an irrigation canal could be
prevail over the criterion of shortest distance although this is a granted subject to the following conditions[:] (1) that the
matter of judicial appreciation. While shortest distance may landowner will shoulder the cost of construction subject to the
ordinarily imply least prejudice, it is not always so as when design and specifications approved by this office[;] (2)
there are permanent structures obstructing the shortest construction schedule must be informed for inspection[;] (3)
distance; while on the other hand, the longest distance may be subject construction will not impede the free flow of irrigation
free of obstructions and the easiest or most convenient to pass water[;] (4) distance between bridges will not hamper our
through. In other words, where the easement may be mechanical equipment to move freely within the area during
established on any of several tenements surrounding the clearing schedule; (5) active participation of the landowner in
dominant estate, the one where the way is shortest and will the clearing and maintenance of the canal for continuous water
cause the least damage should be chosen. However, as flow; (6) any violation of the above conditions will mean
elsewhere stated, if these two (2) circumstances do not concur revocation of the permit and any damage to the canal
in a single tenement, the way which will cause the least structures will mean restoration of the landowner at his own
damage should be used, even if it will not be the cost.73
shortest.68 (Citation omitted) Petitioner would have permanent
structures — such as the garage, garden, and grotto already It is true that an easement of right of way may be granted even
installed on respondent’s property — destroyed to if the construction of the bridge was allowed. However, in
accommodate her preferred location for the right of way. determining if there is an adequate outlet or if the choice of
easement location is least prejudicial to the servient estate, this
The cost of having to destroy these structures, coupled with court cannot disregard the possibility of constructing a bridge
the fact that there is an available outlet that can be utilized for over the four-meter-wide canal. This court must consider all
the right of way, negates a claim that respondents’ property is the circumstances of the case in determining whether
the point least prejudicial to the servient estate. petitioner was able to show the existence of all the conditions
An easement is a limitation on the owner’s right to use his or for the easement of right of way.
her property for the benefit of another. By imposing an The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals also
easement on a property, its owner will have to forego using it considered the aspect of necessity for an easement in
for whatever purpose he or she deems most beneficial. Least determining petitioner’s rights.
prejudice, therefore, is about the suffering of the servient
estate. Its value is not determined solely by the price of the The trial court found that there is still no necessity for an
property, but also by the value of the owner’s foregone easement of right of way because petitioner’s property is
opportunity for use, resulting from the limitations imposed by among the lots that are presently being tenanted by Dominador
the easement.69 and Filomena Ramos’ children.74 Petitioner is yet to use her
property. The Complaint for easement was found to have been
Imposing an easement on the part of respondents’ property for filed merely "for future purposes."75 Thus, according to the
petitioner’s benefit would cost respondents not only the value Court of Appeals, "[a]dmittedly, there is no immediate and
of the property but also the value of respondents’ opportunity imperative need for the construction of a right of way as the
to use the property as a garage or a garden with a grotto. dominant estate and its surrounding properties remain as
Petitioner may use another outlet, which may provide longer agricultural lands under tenancy."76
access from her property to the public highway, but is free The aspect of necessity may not be specifically included in the
from obstructions. The four-meter wide irrigation canal may requisites for the grant of compulsory easement under the
be traversed upon construction of a bridge. As noted by the Civil Code. However, this goes into the question of "least
trial court: prejudice." An easement of right of way imposes a burden on
A neighboring land owner was able to construct a short a property and limits the property owner’s use of that property.
concrete bridge wide enough even for vehicles to pass through The limitation imposed on a property owner’s rights is
the irrigation canal from his property to the barangay road. aggravated by an apparent lack of necessity for which his or
The Court sees no reason why plaintiff could not do the same her property will be burdened.
and why it would not be allowed if carried in accordance with III
the requirements set by NIA.70
The case is not barred by prior
Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, a reading of the August 17, judgment
2005 National Irrigation Administration Letter-Response71 to
petitioner’s query regarding the possibility of constructing a Respondents argued in their Comment that the case was
concrete bridge over the irrigation canal shows that petitioner already barred by prior judgment because petitioner’s
was not really disallowed from constructing a bridge. She was predecessor-in-interest and her siblings had already filed an
merely given certain conditions, thus: action for easement against respondents in 2004. This case,
according to respondents, had already been dismissed because
of the existence of another public road or highway, which can
be accessed after the construction of a bridge over the
irrigation canal.77
Even if it is true that this and the alleged previous case involve
the same issue, there can be no res judicata if there is no
identity of parties and/or subject matter. For purposes of
determining if there is identity of parties, two different persons
may be considered as one identity if they represent the same
interest or cause.83
SO ORDERED.
assigns, the TWO HUNDRED (200) SQUARE METERS,
EASTERN PORTION of the parcel of land above-described,
free from all liens and encumbrances.
xxxx
That for and in consideration of the sum of SEVENTY Branch 26 of the RTC of San Fernando dismissed petitioners’
THOUSAND (P70,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currencyp complaint and granted respondents’ Counterclaim by
[sic] paid to us at our entire satisfaction by spouses VICTOR Decision10 of March 18, 2005, the dispositive portion of which
and JOECELYN [sic] VALDEZ, both of legal age, Filipinos reads:
and residents of 148 P. Burgos St., San Fernando, La Union,
WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing, judgment is
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby SELL,
hereby rendered finding the defendants as against the plaintiffs
CONVEY and TRANSFER by way of absolute sale unto the
and hereby orders the Complaint dismissed for being
said spouses Victor and Joecelyn Valdez, their heirs and
unmeritorious and plaintiffs are hereby ordered to pay the Art. 619. Easements are established either by law or by the
defendants, the following: will of the owners. The former are called legal and the latter
voluntary easements.
1) P100,000.00 as moral damages;
From the allegations in petitioners’ complaint, it is clear that
2) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; what they seek to enforce is an alleged grant in the deed by
3) P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees; respondents of an easement reading: "they shall be provided a
2 ½ meters wide road right-of-way on the western side of their
4) P30,000.00 as expenses of litigation; and lot but which is not included in this sale."
5) To pay the costs. Article 1358 of the Civil Code provides that any transaction
involving the sale or disposition of real property must be in
SO ORDERED.11 (Underscoring supplied)
writing.18 The stipulation harped upon by petitioners that they
On appeal by petitioners, the Court of Appeals, by Decision of "shall be provided a 2 ½ meters wide road right-of-way on the
May 29, 2006,12 affirmed that of the trial court, it holding that western side of their lot but which is not included in this sale"
the deed only conveyed ownership of the subject property to is not a disposition of real property. The proviso that the
petitioners, and that the reference therein to an easement in intended grant of right of way is "not included in this sale"
favor of petitioners is not a definite grant-basis of a voluntary could only mean that the parties would have to enter into a
easement of right of way.13 separate and distinct agreement for the purpose.19 The use of
the word "shall," which is imperative or mandatory in its
The appellate court went on to hold that petitioners are neither ordinary signification, should be construed as merely
entitled to a legal or compulsory easement of right of way as permissive where, as in the case at bar, no public benefit or
they failed to present circumstances justifying their private right requires it to be given an imperative meaning.20
entitlement to it under Article 649 of the Civil Code.14
Besides, a document stipulating a voluntary easement must be
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration15 having been denied recorded in the Registry of Property in order not to prejudice
by the Court of Appeals by Resolution of November 15, 2006, third parties. So Articles 708 and 709 of the Civil Code call
they filed the present petition for review on certiorari faulting for, viz:
the trial [sic] court
Art. 708. The Registry of Property has for its object the
I. . . . IN RULING THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY IS NOT inscription or annotation of acts and contracts relating to the
PART OF THE ABSOLUTE DEED OF SALE DATED ownership and other rights over immovable property.
JANUARY 11, 1993;
Art. 709. The titles of ownership, or of other rights over
II. . . . IN RULING THAT THE PROVISION OF THE immovable property, which are not duly inscribed or
ABSOLUTE DEED OF SALE GRANTING A RIGHT OF annotated in the Registry of Property shall not prejudice third
WAY IS VAGUE AND OBSCURE; persons.
III. . . . IN AWARDING MORAL AND EXEMPLARY Petitioners are neither entitled to a legal or compulsory
DAMAGES TO THE RESPONDENTS.16 (Underscoring easement of right of way. For to be entitled to such kind of
supplied) easement, the preconditions under Articles 649 and 650 of the
Civil Code must be established, viz:
An easement or servitude is "a real right constituted on
another’s property, corporeal and immovable, by virtue of Art. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real
which the owner of the same has to abstain from doing or to right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is
allow somebody else to do something on his property for the surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons,
benefit of another thing or person."17 The statutory basis of and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to
this right is Article 613 of the Civil Code which reads: demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after
payment of the proper indemnity.
Art. 613. An easement or servitude is an encumbrance
imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another xxxx
immovable belonging to a different owner.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the
The immovable in favor of which the easement is established immovable is due to the proprietor’s own acts. (Underscoring
is called the dominant estate; that which is subject thereto, the supplied)
servient estate.
Art. 650. The easement of right of way shall be established at
There are two kinds of easements according to source – by law the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as
or by the will of the owners. So Article 619 of the Civil Code consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant
provides: estate to a public highway may be the shortest. (Underscoring
supplied)
Thus, to be conferred a legal easement of right of way under lupon or pangkat in compliance with summons issued
Article 649, the following requisites must be complied with: pursuant to this Rule may be punished by the city or municipal
(1) the property is surrounded by other immovables and has no court as for indirect contempt of court upon application filed
adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) proper indemnity therewith by the lupon chairman, the pangkat chairman, or by
must be paid; (3) the isolation is not the result of the owner of any of the contending parties. Such refusal or willful failure to
the dominant estate’s own acts; (4) the right of way claimed is appear shall be reflected in the records of the lupon secretary
at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and (5) to or in the minutes of the pangkat secretary and shall bar the
the extent consistent with the foregoing rule, the distance from complainant who fails to appear, from seeking judicial
the dominant estate to a public highway may be the recourse for the same course of action, and the respondent
shortest.21 The onus of proving the existence of these who refuses to appear, from filing any counterclaim arising
prerequisites lies on the owner of the dominant estate,22 herein out of, or necessarily connected with the complaint.
petitioners.
x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
As found, however, by the trial court, which is supported by
the Sketch23 (Exhibit "B"; Exhibit "1") of the location of the While respondent Caridad Tabisula claimed that she always
lots of the parties and those adjoining them, a common appeared, when summoned, before the barangay lupon,29 the
evidence of the parties, petitioners and their family are also the following Certificate to File Action30 belies the claim.
owners of two properties adjoining the subject property which xxxx
have access to two public roads or highways.24
This is to certify that respondents failed to appear for (2)
Since petitioners then have more than adequate passage to two Mediation Proceeding before our Punong Barangay thus the
public roads, they have no right to demand the grant by corresponding complaint may now be filed in court.
respondents of an easement on the "western side of
[respondents’] lot." Issued this 24th day of November 1998 at the Multi Purpose
Hall, Barangay 1 City of San Fernando (LU).
It may not be amiss to note at this juncture that at the time the
deed was executed in 1993, the barangay road-Exhibit "1-G," x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
by which petitioners could access Burgos Street-Exhibit "1-F,"
The award for moral damages being thus baseless, that for
was not yet in existence; and that the Interior Street-Exhibit
exemplary damages must too be baseless.
"1-H," which petitioners via this case seek access to with a
right of way, was still a creek,25 as reflected in the earlier- As for the award of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation,
quoted particular description of respondents’ parcel of land respondents have not shown their entitlement thereto in
from which the subject property originally formed part. accordance with Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
Respecting the grant of damages in favor of respondents by WHEREFORE, the May 29, 2006 Decision and November 15,
the trial court which was affirmed by the appellate court, the 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are MODIFIED in
Court finds the same baseless.1avvphi1 that the grant of the Counterclaim of respondents, Spouses
Francisco Tabisula and Caridad Tabisula, is reversed and set
To merit an award of moral damages, there must be proof of
aside. In all other respects, the challenged decision is
moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. It is not
AFFIRMED.
enough that one suffers sleepless nights, mental anguish,
serious anxiety as a result of the actuation of the other Costs against petitioners.
party.26 Invariably, such actuation must be shown by clear and
convincing evidence27 to have been willfully done in bad faith SO ORDERED.
or with ill-motive.
xxxx
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
The Facts
Finally, the RTC granted the claim of Spouses Williams for SO ORDERED.14
moral damages and exemplary damages. The fallo reads:
Spouses Williams moved for reconsideration, but their motion
WHEREFORE, premises considered, let the herein complaint was denied by the CA in its assailed resolution, dated April
be DISMISSED without pronouncement as to costs. However, 16, 2013.
on the compulsory counterclaim, plaintiff is hereby ordered to
pay defendants moral damages in the sum of ₱30,000.00 and Hence, this petition.
exemplary damages of ₱20,000.00. ISSUE
10
SO ORDERED. WHETHER RESPONDENT ZERDA IS ENTITLED TO
Zerda filed a motion for reconsideration. In its February 8, AN EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY.
2007 Order,11 the RTC partially granted the motion by deleting Spouses Williams argue that the respondent caused the
the award of moral damages. isolation of his property because he bought the lot with notice
Aggrieved, Zerda appealed before the CA. that it had no access to the national highway and was
surrounded by other immovables; that the respondent was in
The CA Ruling bad faith because he was aware that they were negotiating
with Sierra over the purchase of the dominant estate when he
In its assailed November 28, 2012 Decision, the intervened and bought the property himself; that the shortest
CA reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC. It explained distance from the dominant estate to the public highway began
that the isolation of Zerda's property was not due to his own from the northeastern corner of Lot No. 1177-B (the dominant
acts, and to deny the right of way to a purchaser of an estate) following the northern boundary of Lot No. 1201-A,
enclosed estate simply because of his prior knowledge that the then passing through the southeastern portion of Lot No.
same was surrounded by immovables would render the law on 1171-C; and that the right of way requested by the respondent
easements nugatory. "In effect, the purchaser would only be was not the least prejudicial in view of the developments
filling into the shoe[s] of the previous owner of the isolated introduced by them thereon.
property in the exercise of his right to demand an easement of
right of way. The new owner did not do anything that would Zerda was ordered by the Court to file his comment on the
have caused the deliberate isolation of the property."12 petition of Spouses Williams. Despite several opportunities
granted to him, he failed to file his comment.1avvphi1 Thus,
Further, the CA declared that Zerda was not in bad faith when his right to file a comment on the petition for review was
he intervened in the negotiation for the sale of the dominant deemed waived.
The Court's Ruling Williams on January 27, 2004, formally asking them to
provide him with a right of way, for which he was willing to
The conferment of the legal easement of right of way is pay a reasonable value or to swap a portion of his property.18
governed by Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code:
Anent the third requisite, the isolation of the dominant estate
ART. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real was not due to the respondent's own acts. The property he
right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is purchased was already surrounded by other immovables
surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons leaving him no adequate ingress or egress to a public highway.
and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to Spouses Williams refused to grant a right of way and averred
demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after that the isolation of the dominant estate was attributable to the
payment of the proper indemnity. respondent's own acts. They pointed out that when the
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its respondent purchased the dominant estate, he knew that Sierra
use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, was in negotiation with them for the sale of the dominant
establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist estate, thus, he was in bad faith. Nonetheless, it cannot be used
of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the to defeat the respondent's claim for a right of way. Sierra had
damage caused to the servient estate. every right to sell his property to anybody. Further, when the
respondent bought the dominant estate there could have been
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for no existing contract of sale yet considering that Spouses
the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the Williams and Sierra were still in negotiation.
gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a
permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of Hence, consent, one of the essential requisites for a valid
the damage caused by such encumbrance. contract, was lacking.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the As to the fourth requisite, the Court finds that the right of way
immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts. sought by the respondent is at the point least prejudicial to the
servient estate and it is the shortest distance to the national
ART. 650. The easement of right of way shall be established highway. This is evident in the Sketch Plan19 showing that the
at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar requested right of way was alongside the perimeter of Spouses
as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the Williams' property. Moreover, during the ocular inspection,
dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest. the RTC observed that the right of way, which the respondent
was seeking was alongside a precipice.20 Spouses Williams
In summary, an entitlement to the easement of right of way
insisted that they intended to build structures on the portion
requires that the following requisites must be met.
claimed by the respondent, but at a safe distance from the
1. The dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and precipice, not immediately beside it. In addition, the 705.20
has no adequate outlet to a public highway (Art. 649, par. 1); sq. m long pathway would only affect a small portion of the
12,200 sq. m. property of Spouses Williams, and for which the
2. There is payment of proper indemnity (Art. 649, par. 1); respondent expressed willingness to pay.
3. The isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the Even assuming that the right of way being claimed by the
dominant estate (Art. 649, last par.); and respondent is not the shortest distance from the dominant
estate to the public highway, it is well-settled that "[t]he
4. The right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to
criterion of least prejudice to the servient estate must prevail
the servient estate; and insofar as consistent with this rule,
over the criterion of shortest distance although this is a matter
where the distance from the dominant estate to a public
of judicial appreciation. xxx In other words, where the
highway may be the shortest (Art. 650).15
easement may be established on any of several tenements
All the above requisites are present in this case. surrounding the dominant estate, the one where the way
is shortest and will cause the least damage should be chosen.
As regards the first requisite, there is no dispute that the If having these two (2) circumstances do not concur in a single
respondent's property was surrounded by other immovables tenement, the way which will cause the least damage should
owned by different individuals, including Spouses Williams. be used, even if it will not be the shortest."21 As previously
The isolation was further shown in the Sketch Plan16 prepared discussed, the right of way claimed by the respondent is at a
by Honorato R. Bisnar, the geodetic engineer deputized by the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.
parties. Moreover, contrary to Spouses Williams' claim that
there was a barangay road closest to the dominant estate, the R WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The November 28,
TC, during the ocular inspection, observed that "there was no 2012 Decision and the April 16, 2013 Resolution of the Court
existing barangay road xxx."17 of Appeals in CAG. R. CV No. 01115-MIN,
are AFFIRMED in toto.
The second requisite of payment of indemnity was also
complied with by the respondent when he wrote Spouses G.R. No. 163118 April 27, 2007
DORIS CHIONGBIAN-OLIVA, Petitioner, Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Cebu City is hereby
vs. directed to cancel the above legal encumbrance of forty (40)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE meters annotated on Petitioner’s Transfer Certificate of Title
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL No. 5455 and in lieu thereof, annotate the applicable legal
RESOURCES AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF encumbrance of three (3) meters for river bank protection.
CEBU CITY, Respondents.
SO ORDERED.10
DECISION
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s
QUISUMBING, J.: decision. It upheld the DENR’s claim that the property was
inalienable. Accordingly, a positive act of the government was
This petition for certiorari assails (1) the Decision1 dated necessary to declassify it from forest land to alienable land.
August 7, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. Declaration of the property as residential in the tax declaration
74409, reversing the Decision2 dated December 13, 2001 of and reclassification of the area where it is located as urban
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 12 in SP. Proc. were insufficient bases to reclassify the property. The fallo of
No. 10746-CEB, and (2) the Resolution3 dated March 17, the appellate court’s decision reads:
2004, denying the motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated
The following facts are undisputed. December 13, 2001, of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial
Petitioner Doris Chiongbian-Oliva is the registered owner of a Region, Branch 12, Cebu City, in SP. PROC. NO. 10746-
parcel of land in Talamban, Cebu City, as evidenced by CEB, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 5455.4 This title pronouncement as to costs.
originated from Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1066 SO ORDERED.11
from a free patent granted on September 11, 1969 under
Commonwealth Act No. 141,5 as amended. The free patent, The appellate court later denied petitioner’s motion for
OCT No. 1066, and TCT No. 5455 contained the condition reconsideration.
that a forty-meter legal easement from the bank of any river or
stream shall be preserved as permanent timberland.6 Petitioner now raises the following issues:
The right of way mentioned in the TCT No. 107915 of the Subsequently, on July 1, 1992, Barangay Chairman Jose F.
Spouses Bardilas (Lot No. 5808-F-2-B) exited into the Clarita Navarro of Punta Princesa, Cebu City convened a meeting
Subdivision and was roughly 300 lineal meters from Buhisan among the interested parties at the Chinese Temple inside the
Road, a national road. Clarita Village. In attendance were officers of the Clarita
Village Association, including petitioner Bernabe Mercader,
Behind Lot No. 5808-F-2-B was Lot No. 5808-F-3, registered Jr., and barangay officials. The Clarita Village Association
under TCT No. 88158 in the name of"LETECIA GABUYA explained that its closure of the right of way had been for the
BARDILAS, married to JESUS BARDILAS, both of legal age purpose of preventing individuals of "questionable character"
and Filipinos,"6 particularly described as follows: from using the right of way to enter the area to steal from the
A parcel of land (Lot 5808-F-3, Psd-07-07-004579, bearing a residents of the Clarita Village. The meeting resulted in the
portion of 5808-F, psd-07-07-003019); situated in the District discussion and agreement of the following matters, to wit:9
of Punta Princesa, Ciky (sic) of Cebu, Island of Cebu. 1) The villagers/Clarita Village Association WILL HAVE NO
Bounded on the Ne. and NW. along lines 1-2-3- by lot 5808- OBJECTION for the spouses: Jesus and Letecia Bardilas (on
F-4; on the NW., along line 3-4 by lot 5808-F-5; along line 4- their own expense) (sic) demolish a portion of the wall fence
5 by lot 5808-F-6, all of the subdivision plan; on the NW., erected on a portion of Clarita Village side street blocking the
along line 5-6 by Lot 5725, Cebu Cadatre; on the East and said spouses' right of way; - and replace with IRON GATE so
SE., along lines 7-8-9 by lot 5808-B; on the SE., along line 9- that they can use it anytime. Buying cost of the iron gate - as
1 by lot 5808-C; along 10-11-12 bylot (sic) 5808-D; along line well as labor cost in replacing the knocked out portion of the
12-13-14 by Lot 5808-E., all psd-0701003019; on the SE., said wall fence with iron gate will be shouldered by spouses:
along line 14-45 by lot 5726, Cebu Cadastre; on the SW., Jesus and Letecia Bardilas.
along line 15-16 by Lot 5808-F-2 of the subdivision plan; and
on the NW, along line 16-1 by lot 5725, Cebu Cadastre. x x x 2) KEYS TO THE IRON GATE. - One (1) key will be given
to the spouses MR. & MRS. BERNABE MERCADER so that
In relation to Lot No. 5808-F-3, there is another right of way at anytime they can open the gate in going thru their residence.
about 40 lineal meters away from Buhisan Road.7 ONE (1) key will be kept by spouses: Jesus and Letecia
On May 11, 1992, the Clarita Village Association erected a Bardilas for their usage in opening the iron gate anytime they
concrete perimeter fence to close the exit point of the right of may open it.
way of the Spouses Bardilas from Lot No. 5808-F-2-B to the 3) All parties present were in accord that the contents of items
existing road within Clarita Village. The closure forced the 1 to 3 STAND as their agreement in solving this instant case,
Spouses Bardilas to use the second exit to Buhisan Road, and also in accord to implement the agreement as soon as
which is from their Lot No. 5808-F-3. possible. THEY ALSO AGREE THAT IN VIEW OF THIS
At the instance of the Clarita Village Association, and the AGREEMENT, - THEY ALL CONSIDER THIS CASE
Spouses Bardilas, Engr. Edgar T. Batiquin of the Office of the AMICABLY SETTLED.
Building Official of Cebu City, conducted his By letter dated August 14, 1992, 10 the Spouses Bardilas,
verification/investigation of the vicinity of the disputed right through Atty.
of way. Engr. Batiquin later on reported to the Building
Official the following findings in his letter dated June 15, Alfredo J. Sipalay, informed the Spouses Mercader of the
1992,8 to wit: encroachment by about 14 square meters of the latter's
residential house and fence on the right of way. Hence, they
Per verification/investigation conducted in connection with the wrote that they were giving the latter two alternatives, namely:
above subject the findings are to wit:
1. Pay THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱30,000.00) for the 14
1. That the fence constructed by the association should have square meters which your house and wall fence have
the encroached (the amount represents ₱2,000.00 per square
necessary permit; meter, which is the fair market value of the property plus
P2,000.00 for the expenses the Spouses Bardilas have incurred
2. Said fence encroached a small portion of the road right-of- as a result of the encroachment of your property); or
way of Ms. Bardilas (please see attached sketch plan, color
red); 2. Demolish the wall fence and the portion of your house
which encroached my clients' property.
3. That a fence and portion of the redidential house owned by
Mr. Bernabe Mercader have also encroached the road right-of- On August 19, 1992, the Spouses Mercader, through Atty.
way (please see attached sketch plan, color green); Rolindo A. Navarro, responded by insisting that as the owners
of Lot No. 5808-F-2-A they were equally entitled to the right
of way; and that they were proposing to buy the equivalent
portion of the right of way to which they were entitled at a demolished (sic) his wall fence and portions of his house
reasonable price, viz.: 11 which encroached my clients' road right of way.
Dear Compañero: Since Mr. Mercader opts to pay my clients, we reiterate our
demand for ₱30,000.00 which is the fair market value of my
Your letter dated August 14, 1992 addressed to Mr. Bernabe clients' property.
Mercader has been referred to me for appropriate response.
We hope we could settle this matter within this week.
In this connection, please be informed that my said client is
equally entitled to the use of the road-right-of-way subject of Civil Case No. CEB-12783
your letter having bought Lot No. 5808-F-2-A which is one of
the two dominant estates entitled thereto. The other estate is Finding the demand for payment of ₱30,000.00 by the
Lot No. 5808-F-2-B owned by your clients. Incidentally, this Spouses Bardilas to be unlawful, unwarranted and unfounded,
road-right-of-way has not been used for its purpose as the exit the Spouses Mercader commenced on September 8, 1992 their
to Clarita Village has been closed. Attached herewith is copy action for declaratory relief, injunction and damages against
of TCT No. 107914 for Lot No. 5808-F-2-A as Annex "A". the Spouses Bardilas in the RTC in Cebu City (Civil Case No.
CEB-12783). The case was assigned to Branch 20.
However, if your client is willing, my client proposes to buy
the equivalent portion of the road-right-of-way to which they The Spouses Mercader alleged that they were the lawful and
are entitled to at a reasonable price. registered owners of adjoining lots, to wit: Lot No. 5808-F-1
and Lot No. 5808-F-2-A where their residential house stood;
Please feel free to communicate with me on this matter. 13 and that their Lot No. 5808-F-2-A and the Spouses
Bardilas' Lot No. 5805-F-2-B were portions of Lot No. 5808-
In their reply of August 24, 1992, 12 the Spouses Bardilas F-2 that had been subdivided and sold separately to each of
rejected the claim of the Spouses Mercader that they were them; 14 that Lot No. 5808-F-2-A was bounded on the North
entitled to the use of the right of way, and reiterated their and the East by Lot No. 5808-F-2-B; that in 1989, they had
demand for ₱30,000.00 as the fair market value of the used a negligible portion 8f the easement to build their fence
property, stating: and a portion of their residential house, without impairing the
Dear Atty. Navarro: use for which it was established and without any objection,
protest or complaint from the respondents; that they retained
This is in reply to your letter dated August 19, 1992 which our the ownership of the portion of the property on which the
office received on August 20, 1992. easement was established pursuant to Article 630 of the Civil
Code; that the non-user of the easement had extinguished it
My clients, Spouses Jesus and Letecia Bardilas, disagree with
pursuant to Article 631, paragraph 3, of the Civil Code; that
Mr. Bernabe Mercader's claim that he is entitled to the use of
the rights of the dominant and servient estates had merged in
their road right of way. Attached as Annex "A" is a photocopy
them; and that there was a need to declare their rights to that
of my clients' TCT No. 107915 of the property in question
portion of their property on which the easement of right of
which clearly states that my clients' property is subject to three
way had been established vis-a-vis the unlawful demands of
(3) meters wide right of way. Mr. Mercader's TCT No 107914,
the Spouses Bardilas.
which was issued on the same day and time as my clients'
TCT on March 30, 1989 at 10:10 a.m., don't (sic) have the The Spouses Mercader prayed that they be declared as having
same provision regarding the use of a right of way. This is retained the ownership of the 63.33 square meters where the
because Mr. Mercader's property is fronting the street while easement of right of way had been established; that the merger
my clients' property is situated at the back of Mr. Mercader's of the rights of the servient estate owner and dominant estate
property; hence, the provision regarding the right of way on owner be declared their favor; 15 and that the Spouses Bardilas
my clients' TCT. be made to pay damages.
It is true that my clients' road right of way has been closed In their answer, 16 the Spouses Bardilas averred that Lot No.
since June, 1992 due to a wall constructed by the Clarita 5808-F-2-A and Lot No. 5808-F-2-B used to be parts of Lot
Village Association resulting in much inconvenience to my No. 5808-F-2; that the right of way in question was a part of
clients since they have to pass through a circuitous and muddy Lot No. 5808-F-2-B that they owned as borne out by the
road. However, in a meeting with their Barangay Captain, the technical descriptions of Lot No. 5808-F-2-A17 and Lot No.
officers of the Clarita Village Association already agreed to let 5808-F-2-B 18 as well as the subdivision plan of the
my clients pass through the wall provided they will put up a properties; 19 that they learned of the encroachment on the
gate between the walls. My clients already have a three (3) portion of their property being used as right of way only from
meter wide gate ready to be put up only to discover that it the survey conducted by Engr. Batiquin of the Office of the
won't fit because Mr. Mercader has encroached their road right Building Official in June 1992;20 and that they then referred
of way. Hence, my letter to Mr. Mercader on August 14, 1992, the matter to their lawyer for appropriate action.
informing him to pay ₱30,000.00 to my clients or to
The Spouses Bardilas stated as affirmative defense that (c) GRANTING to petitioner Mercader's (sic) the right to use
although the property of the Spouses Mercaders had a gate and occupy the extinguised easement which adjoins the
fronting the side street within the Clarita Village, they had Mercader's properties;
allowed the latter to use the right of way only because Bernabe
Mercader, Jr. was the husband of the elder sister of Letecia (d) ORDERING respondents spouses, Jesus and Letecia
Gabuya Bardilas; that the Spouses Mercader abused the favor Bardilas to pay petitioners the following amounts:
by using the right of way as their garage; that they requested a) The sum of ₱100,000.00 as moral damages;
the Spouses Mercader to move their vehicles out but they got
angry and instigated the closure of the right of way by the b) The sum of ₱35,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
Clarita Village Association, where he was a ranking officer at
c) The sum of ₱20,000.00 as costs of suit;
the start of the dispute; that the Spouses Mercader were
wrongly claiming the extinguishment of the right of way; and and in Civil Case No.13384:
that the Spouses Mercader had no cause of action against
them, and should be held liable for damages in their favor. (a) DISMISSING the amended complaint filed by plaintiffs
spouses Bardilas;
During the pre-trial on September 29, 1993, the trial court
required the Spouses Mercader to amend their petition to (b) DECLARING the road network of the Clarita Village still
include the children of Bernabe Mercader, Jr. by his first wife, as private properties and not public;
Rebecca Gabuya Mercader, due to their being the registered
(c) DECLARING that the closure of OUTLET NO. 1 of said
owners of Lot No. 5808-F-1. The amended petition, dated
easement of right of way by the Clartita Village as lawful and
October 25, 1993, was filed on November 4, 1993.21
valid;
Civil Case No. CEB-13384
SO ORDERED.
In view of the encroachment by the Spouses Mercader on a
On October 19, 1995, the Spouses Bardilas moved for a new
portion of the road right of way, the Spouses Bardilas could
trial on the ground of newly discovered
not fit their 3-meter wide iron gate. Another meeting with the
evidence,25 representing that they had obtained the
officers of the Clarita Village Association was held on
certification dated August 24, 1995 by Antonio V. Osmeña,
November 11, 1992.22 When the efforts of the parties to
the developer of the Clarita Village and the attorney-in-fact of
amicably settle the issue failed, the Spouses Bardilas brought
Carmen and Elena Siguenza, the owners of the Clarita
on December 24, 1992 their own suit for specific performance
Village,26 to the effect that the road network of the Clarita
with preliminary prohibitory or mandatory injunction against
Village had been donated to Cebu City. "hey appended to the
the Clarita Village Association and the Spouses Mercader
motion the Deed of Donation of Road Lots27and the
(Civil Case No. CEB-13384) in the RTC in Cebu City. The
certification dated July 5, 1995 28 by Antonio B. Sanchez,
case was raffled to Branch 10 of the RTC.
Department Head III of the Office of the City Engineer,
On October 5, 1993, the Spouses Bardilas moved for the Department of Engineering and Public Works of Cebu City,
consolidation of Civil Case No. CEB-13384 with Civil Case stating that the road network within the Clarita Village "has
No. CEB-12783. The RTC (Branch 10) granted the motion for been used as part of the road network of the City of Cebu and
consolidation.23 as such was asphalted by the city thru F.T. Sanchez
Construction in 1980." These documents, according to the
Judgment of the RTC Spouses Bardilas, were newly discovered evidence that they
"could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and
On October 10, 1995, the RTC rendered its consolidated
produced at the trial."29
decision in Civil Case No. CEB 12783 and Civil Case No.
CEB-13384, disposing:24 On November 13, 1995, 30 the RTC denied the motion for new
trial because: (a) the Deed of Donation of Road Lots had been
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises,
in the possession of the movants' counsel, and had been in fact
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of petitioner Mercader's
shown to the court, but had neither been offered nor marked as
(sic) as against spouses Bardilas in Civil Case No. 12783:
evidence during the trial; (b) the certifications (Annexes A and
(a) DECLARING the EXTINGUISHMENT of the easement C of the motion for new trial) had derived their existence from
of road right of way passing through the real properties of the Deed of Donation of Road Lots, and could not be
petitioners spouses Mercader's (sic) and Bernabe Mercader, Jr. considered as newly discovered evidence; (c) the Deed of
and his children and the cancellation of the annotation of said Donation of Road Lots did not bear the signature of then
easement from TCT No. 107914 and TCT No. 88156; Acting City Mayor Eulogio Borres as the representative of the
donee; and (d) the Deed of Donation of Road Lots had not
(b) DECLARING petitioner Mercader's (sic) as owners of been notarized. It noted that the failure to comply with the
said extinguished easement of right of way; legal requirements for donations under the Civil
Code rendered the donation void and invalid, and could not On April 28, 2003, the Spouses Mercader sought the
alter the result of the litigation. reconsideration of the decision,34 stating that the CA had
"erred in awarding the 3 meter road right of way to the
With the denial of their motion for new trial, the Spouses [Spouses Bardilas] and in ordering the respondent Mercader
Bardilas appealed to the CA.31 spouses, et al. to pay attorney's fees."35 They argued that
Decision of the CA because Lot No. 5808-F-2-A and Lot No.5808-F-2-B used to
be one lot denominated as Lot No. 5808-F-2 that had the same
In their appeals, the Spouses Bardilas insisted that the RTC right of way leading to the Clarita Village, they "are also
committed reversible errors in declaring:32 legally entitled to the other half of the right of way" as owners
of one of the subdivided lots;36 that, as shown in their Exhibit
I. That the Mercaders are the owners of the easement of right
H,37 Lot No. 5808-F-3 of the Spouses Bardilas "has another 3
of way in question.
meter road right of way towards another point of Buhisan
II. That the easement of right of way in question has been Road which is only about 40 lineal meters"38 from their
extinguished. property; and that the award of attorney's fees was "not proper
there being no legal basis to grant the award. "39
III. In granting the Mercaders the right to use and occupy the
extinguished easement which adjoins the Mercaders' On March 16, 2004, 40 however, the CA denied Spouses
properties. Mercader's motion for reconsideration.
IV. In awarding moral damages, attorney's fees and costs of Hence, this appeal only insofar as Civil Case No. CEB-12783
suit to the Mercaders in Civil Case No. CEB-12783. was concemed.41
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Petitioner alleged that BISUDECO constructed the disputed On July 21, 1993, the RTC issued a Writ of Preliminary
road pursuant to an agreement with the owners of the Injunction19 ordering the respondents to desist from
ricefields the road traversed. The agreement provides that constructing barricades across the road.
BISUDECO shall employ the children and relatives of the
landowners in exchange for the construction of the road on On June 28, 1994, nine other cooperatives20 filed their
their properties. Petitioner contends that through prolonged Complaint-in-Intervention.21
and continuous use of the disputed road, BISUDECO acquired On June 25, 1997 the RTC rendered a Decision,22 the
a right of way over the properties of the landowners, which dispositive portion of which reads:
right of way in turn was acquired by it when it bought
BISUDECO's assets. Petitioner prayed that respondents be WHEREFORE, premises considered, a decision is hereby
permanently ordered to restrain from barricading the disputed rendered declaring the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued
road and from obstructing its free passage.7 against all the herein defendants, their agents, representatives
and such other persons acting in their behalf, permanent and
In an Order8 dated April 19, 1993, the Regional Trial Court of perpetual BUT the plaintiff Bicol Agro-Industrial Cooperative,
Pili (RTC), Camarines Sur, 5th Judicial Region, Branch 31, Inc., (BAPCI) is hereby ordered to pay the owners of the lots
ordered respondents, their agents and representatives to cease affected by the road, viz: Pedro Montero - P299,040.00; Pedro
and desist from placing barricades on the disputed road.9 Galon - P52,920.00; Clara Padua - P46,410.00; Antonio
In their Answer,10 respondents denied having entered into an Buizon - P35,070.00; Rogelio Montero - P41,160.00; Maria
agreement with BISUDECO regarding the construction and Villamer - P41,580.00; Melchor Brandes - P76,440.00;
the use of the disputed road. They alleged that BISUDECO, Prudencio Benosa - P41, 650.00; Elena Benosa - P39,550.00;
surreptitiously and without their knowledge and consent, Victor Bagasina, Jr. - P39,410.00; and Claudio Resari
constructed the disputed road on their properties and has since - P40,950.00. Upon full payment thereof, the plaintiff shall be
then intermittently and discontinuously used the disputed road declared the absolute owner of the road in question. Legal rate
for hauling sugarcane despite their repeated protests. if interest is hereby imposed upon the plaintiff from the
Respondents claimed they tolerated BISUDECO in the finality of this decision until fully payment hereof. No costs.
construction and the use of the road since BISUDECO was a SO ORDERED.23
government-owned and controlled corporation, and the entire
country was then under Martial Law. Respondents likewise The RTC ruled that petitioner failed to present any concrete
denied that the road has become a public road, since no public evidence to prove that there was an agreement between
funds were used for its construction and maintenance. BISUDECO and respondents for the construction of the
Moreover, respondents alleged that with the exception of disputed road.24 Moreover, it held that petitioner did not
Edmundo and Perfecto Obias, they are actual tillers of the acquire the same by prescription.25 The RTC, however, also
ricelands, having acquired their rights over said lands under held that petitioner was entitled to a compulsory easement of
Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27). Edmundo and Perfecto right of way as provided for under Article 649 of the New
Obias are the owners of the eastern portion of the property on Civil Code upon payment of proper indemnity to
which a portion of the road going to BISUDECO was respondents.26
constructed. Respondents denied that they barricaded the
Both parties filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC
road.11
Decision. Petitioner contended that: (1) the value of the land is
Jaime Manubay and Manolito Maralit, for themselves and in excessive; (2) the evidence is insufficient to justify the award;
representation of other sugarcane planters, filed the first (3) the decision is contrary to law and jurisprudence.
complaint-in-intervention.12 Respondents, on the other hand, alleged that: (1) the trial court
erred in declaring the persons mentioned in the decision's
Petitioner filed an Amended Complaint13 and with leave of dispositive portion to be entitled to indemnity for the
court a Re-Amended Complaint,14 where it averred, as an construction and the use of the disputed road; (2) BAPCI
alternative cause of action in the event the lower court does should not be declared the absolute owner of the disputed road
not find merit in its causes of action, that it will avail of the upon full payment of the indemnity due to the defendants; and
benefits provided for under Article 64915 of the New Civil (3) the decision failed to award damages.27
Code. Petitioner thus demanded from respondents a right of
way over the disputed road for its use.16 On September 24, 1997, the RTC denied both motions for
reconsideration.28 The parties then appealed to the CA.
Respondents filed an Answer17 to refute petitioner's alternative
cause of action. Respondents claimed that the road from the On August 24, 2005, the CA rendered a Decision, the
sugarmill to the Maharlika Highway at Barangay Romero, dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is PARTLY THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE CLASSIFICATION
Court, Branch 31, Pili, Camarines Sur, in Civil Case No. P- OF THE ROAD IN QUESTION AS BARANGAY ROAD.
1899 is hereby MODIFIED as follows: the awards of
Php46,410.00 to Clara Padua and Php41,650.00 to Prudencio IV.
Benosa are hereby DELETED, and the declaration that the IN THE ALTERNATIVE CAUSE OF ACTION, THE
plaintiff BAPCI shall become the absolute owner of the PUBLIC RESPONDENT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
disputed road upon full payment of indemnity is REVERSED CONSIDERING THE VALUATION OF THE LANDS
and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the owners of the servient AFFECTED BY THE ROAD IN 1994, AND NOT IN 1974,
estate in the easement of right of way recognized in this WHEN SAID ROAD WAS CONSTRUCTED.
Decision shall retain ownership of the lands affected by the
easement in accordance with Art. 630 of the Civil Code. We V.
hereby AFFIRM the appeal in all other respects.
THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED
SO ORDERED.29 SERIOUSLY WHEN IT FAILED ALSO TO CONSIDER
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE OF UNJUST ENRIGHTMENT
The CA affirmed the finding of the RTC that there was no AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER.34
conclusive proof to sufficiently establish the existence of an
agreement between BISUDECO and respondents regarding At the outset, this Court shall address some procedural
the construction of the disputed road.30 Moreover, the CA also matters. Quite noticeably, herein petition is denominated as
declared that an easement of right of way is discontinuous and one filed under Rule 6535 of the Rules of Court
as such cannot be acquired by prescription.31 The CA likewise notwithstanding that it seeks to assail the Decision and
affirmed the finding of the RTC that petitioner was entitled to Resolution of the CA. Clearly, petitioner had availed of the
a compulsory easement of right of way upon payment of improper remedy as the appeal from a final disposition of the
proper indemnity to respondents. The CA, however, declared CA is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 and not a special
that ownership over the disputed road should remain with civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.36
respondents, despite the grant of a compulsory
In Active Realty and Development Corporation v.
easement.32 Lastly, the CA deleted the awards to Prudencio
Fernandez,37 this Court discussed the difference between
Benosa (Benosa) and Clara Padua (Padua), since the former
petitions filed under Rule 65 and Rule 45, viz:
never claimed ownership of any portion of the lands affected
by the disputed road and the latter was not a party to the A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is proper to correct
proceedings below.33 errors of jurisdiction committed by the lower court, or grave
abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging
This remedy can be availed of when "there is no appeal, or
among others that the CA Decision failed to rule on the issue
any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of estoppel and laches. Moreover, Benosa and Padua filed a
of law."
Motion for Reconsideration assailing the portion of the CA
Decision deleting the award of indemnity to them. On March Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, on
28, 2006, the CA issued a Resolution denying the same. the other hand, is a mode of appeal available to a party
desiring to raise only questions of law from a judgment or
Hence, herein petition, with petitioner raising the following
final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals,
assignment of errors, to wit:
the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
I. whenever authorized by law.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED x x x The general rule is that the remedy to obtain reversal or
SERIOUSLY IN NOT FINDING THAT THERE WAS modification of judgment on the merits is appeal. Thus, the
FORGED AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN BISUDECO proper remedy for the petitioner should have been a Petition
MANAGEMENT AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS for Review on Certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
FOR THE CONTRUCTION OF THE ROAD IN QUESTION. since the decision sought to be reversed is that of the CA. The
existence and availability of the right of appeal proscribes a
II. resort to certiorari, because one of the requisites for availment
THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF of the latter is precisely that "there should be no appeal. The
APPEALS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE remedy of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court was still
PRINCIPLES OF PRESCRIPTION, LACHES AND available to the petitioner.38
ESTOPPEL IN THE CASE AT BAR. Rule 45 is clear that decisions, final orders or resolutions of
III. the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature
of the action or proceeding involved, may be appealed to this
Court by filing a Petition for Review, which would be but a
continuation of the appellate process over the original A. The agreement was of public knowledge.42 Allegedly
case.39 Moreover, it is basic that one cannot avail of the BISUDECO and respondents entered into an agreement for
remedy provided for under Rule 65 when an appeal is still the construction of the road provided that the latter, their
available. Hence, petitioner should have filed its petition under children or relatives were employed with BISUDECO.
Rule 45.
b. The road was continuously used by BISUDECO and the
The procedural infirmity notwithstanding and in the interest of public in general.43
substantial justice, this Court shall consider herein petition as
one filed under Rule 45 especially since it was filed well c. There was no protest or complaint from respondents for
within the reglementary period proscribed under the said Rule. almost a period of two decades.44
The Court also takes notice that the assignment of errors d. The portions of the land formerly belonging to respondents
raised by petitioner does not allege grave abuse of discretion affected by the road were already segregated and surveyed
or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the CA. from the main lots.45
On the Existence of an Agreement between BISUDECO e. The road in dispute is already a barangay road.
and Respondents
The well-entrenched rule in our jurisdiction is that only
Anent the first error raised, petitioner argues that the CA erred questions of law may be entertained by this Court in a Petition
in not finding that BISUDECO and respondents forged an for Review on Certiorari . This rule, however, is not iron-clad
agreement for the construction of the road in dispute. and admits certain exceptions, such as when (1) the conclusion
Petitioner thus asserts its entitlement to an easement of right of is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the
way over the properties of respondents by virtue of said inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3)
agreement. there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on
An easement of right of way was succinctly explained by the a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are
CA in the following manner, to wit: conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on
which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of
Easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence
immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are
a different owner. By its creation, easement is established contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals
either by law (in which case it is a legal easement) or by will manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts
of the parties (a voluntary easement). In terms of use, that, if properly considered, would justify a different
easement may either be continuous or conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are
discontinuous. The easement of right of way ' the privilege beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are
of persons or a particular class of persons to pass over contrary to the admissions of both parties.46
another's land, usually through one particular path or
linen - is characterized as a discontinuous After a painstaking review of the records, this Court finds no
easement because its use is in intervals and depends on the justification to warrant the application of any exception to the
act of man. Because of this character, an easement of a general rule.
right of way may only be acquired by virtue of a title.40 Crucial to the petitioner's cause was its burden of proving the
Article 622 of the New Civil Code is the applicable law in the existence of the alleged agreement between BISUDECO and
case at bar, viz: respondents for the construction of the road. In this regard, the
RTC found that petitioner failed to prove its existence, to wit:
Art. 622. Continuous non-apparent easements, and
discontinuous ones, whether apparent or not, may be It is clear that the plaintiff failed to present any concrete
acquired only by virtue of a title. evidence to prove that there was such an agreement between
BISUDECO and defendants. Hereunder quoted are the
Based on the foregoing, in order for petitioner to acquire the testimonies of plaintiff's witnesses regarding the alleged
disputed road as an easement of right-of-way, it was agreement.
incumbent upon petitioner to show its right by title or by an
agreement with the owners of the lands that said road Romeo Deveterbo, Transportation Superintendent of
traversed. BISUDECO testified'
While conceding that they have no direct evidence of the Cross Examination by Atty. Pejo
alleged agreement, petitioner posits that they presented Q: You also mentioned that there was an agreement between
circumstantial evidence which, if taken collectively, would Senator Cea, Mr. Obias and some of the tenants?cralawred
prove its existence.41 Specifically, petitioner cites the
following circumstances, to wit: A: Yes.
Q: You mentioned that this was not in writing, am I right? But this Engineer Pablo Tordilla, Lobo's alleged source of the
cralawred information, was never presented in Court. And, according to
the Chief Accountant of BAPCI, David Severo:
A: Yes.
A: When I was interviewing Mrs. Alma Montero Penaflor she
Q: How did you know about it that it was not in writing, who filed to me a certain arrangement related to the used of the
told you, Senator Cea?cralawred land to Himaao as road going to the central.
A: It was commonly known to all original employees of the COURT: You mean Himaao Millsite road?cralawred
BISUDECO.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You know it from the management?cralawred
Atty. Carandang:
A: From co-employees.
Q: What arrangement is that supposedly filed to you?
Q: You learned about that agreement from you co-employees? cralawred
cralawred
A: She told me in exchange for the use of the road, the
A: Yes. relatives or owners or tenants of the land will be hired by the
Q: In other words, therefore, that is why you said you are sugar Central?cralawred
confused between Edmundo Cea and Perfecto Obias because COURT:
you just learned it from other employees and you were never
present when they talked about it, am I right?cralawred Q: So, only the tenants not the owners?cralawred
To this effect also is the testimony of Angel Lobo, head of the xxx
agricultural Department of BAPCI, to wit:
Finally, intervenor Antonio Austria, in trying to show you that
A: Yes, your Honor?cralawred there was consent and approval on the part of the defendant
Edmundo Obias to give the right of way to BISUDECO at the
COURT: From where did you learn?cralawred time to be used in hauling the sugarcane of the planters to the
A: From people whom I talked with at that time and it is a Central, averred the following uncertain statements:
public common knowledge at that time. A: Well, he has (sic) having a case against PENSUNIL,
xxx regarding the property I think the right of way going to
PENSUMIL right now we discuss it and he said he is allowing
Atty. Carandang: I repeat my question, Your Honor. it anymore but then I reminded him wayback in 1974 to 1980
he was one of the biggest planters in the part of Partido so he
You said you acquired it from or because of common
consented to the late I think Edmundo Cea, the owner of
knowledge and you mentioned some people. Who are those
BISUDECO at that time to pass his property since he is also
people you are referring to whom you acquired that
milling a lot of things at that time and many other things one
knowledge?cralawred
of the concession mill was I think some of the tenants there in
A: Most of all, the late Benjamin Bagasina, Barangay Captain Himaao will be employed in the mill.
at that time who was our employee in consideration of this
xxx
agreement, then we have also a Civil Engineering Head, Civil
Engineering Department who is responsible for the These aforequoted testimonies of the plaintiff's witnesses
maintenance of this road. I learned from him that this failed to satisfactorily establish the plaintiff's contention that
arrangement established the fact why this road was there was such an agreement. Likewise, the list of the
constructed. Employees of Defendants' relatives, son/daughter employed
by the BISUDECO (Exhibit H) does not in any manner prove
Q: Who is the head of the Engineering Dept?
the alleged agreement.47
xxx
For its part, the CA also ruled that petitioner failed to prove
COURT: May answer. the existence of the said agreement, to wit:
A: Engineer Pablo Tordilla who was then the head of our Civil Like the lower court, we found no conclusive proof to
Engineering Dept. sufficiently establish the existence of an agreement between
BISUDECO and the defendants-appellants regarding the
construction and the use of the disputed road. The lower court
correctly disbelieved the plaintiffs-appellants' contention that
an agreement existed because there is simply no direct prescriptive period in 1969, petitioner supposedly acquired the
evidence to support this allegation. BAPCI submitted purely easement of right of way over the subject land.
circumstantial evidence that are not sufficiently adequate as
basis for the inference than an agreement existed. By Following the logic of the courts a quo, if a road for the use of
themselves, the circumstances the plaintiffs-appellants cited - vehicles or the passage of persons is permanently cemented or
i.e., the employment of sixteen (16) relatives of the asphalted, then the right of way over it becomes continuous in
defendants-appellants; the defendants-appellants' unjustified nature. The reasoning is erroneous.
silence; the fact that the existence of the agreement is known Under civil law and its jurisprudence, easements are either
to everyone, etc. - are events susceptible of diverse continuous or discontinuous according to the manner they are
interpretations and do not necessarily lead to BAPCI's desired exercised, not according to the presence of apparent signs or
conclusion. Additionally, the testimonies that the plaintiffs- physical indications of the existence of such easements. Thus,
appellants presented are mainly hearsay, as not one among the easement is continuous if its use is, or may be, incessant
witnesses had personal knowledge of the agreement by reason without the intervention of any act of man, like the easement
of direct participation in the agreement or because the witness of drainage; and it is discontinuous if it is used at intervals and
was present when the agreement was concluded by the parties. depends on the act of man, like the easement of right of way.
Thus, given the defendants-appellants' categorical denial that
an agreement existed, we sustain the lower's conclusion that The easement of right of way is considered discontinuous
no agreement existed between BISUDECO and the because it is exercised only if a person passes or sets foot on
defendants-appellants.48 somebody else's land. Like a road for the passage of vehicles
or persons, an easement of right of way of railroad tracks is
Based on the foregoing, the inability of petitioner to prove the discontinuous because the right is exercised only if and when
existence of an agreement militates its allegations in herein a train operated by a person passes over another's property. In
petition. On this score, both the RTC and the CA are one in other words, the very exercise of the servitude depends upon
ruling that petitioner had failed to prove the existence of the the act or intervention of man which is the very essence of
agreement between BISUDECO and the respondents for the discontinuous easements.
construction of the road. Also, well-established is the rule that
"factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the The presence of more or less permanent railroad tracks does
parties and carry even more weight when the said court not, in any way, convert the nature of an easement of right of
affirms the factual findings of the trial court."49 Hence, this way to one that is continuous. It is not the presence of
Court finds no reason to reverse such findings. apparent signs or physical indications showing the existence
of an easement, but rather the manner of exercise thereof, that
On Acquisition by Prescription categorizes such easement into continuous or discontinuous.
Petitioner would have this Court re-examine Costabella The presence of physical or visual signs only classifies an
Corporation v. Court of Appeals50 (Costabella) where the easement into apparent or non-apparent. Thus, a road (which
Court held that, "It is already well-established that a right of reveals a right of way) and a window (which evidences a right
way is discontinuous and, as such, cannot be acquired by to light and view) are apparent easements, while an easement
prescription."51 Petitioner contends that some recognized of not building beyond a certain height is non-apparent.
authorities52 share its view that an easement of right of way In Cuba, it has been held that the existence of a permanent
may be acquired by prescription. railway does not make the right of way a continuous one; it is
Be that as it may, this Court finds no reason to re-examine only apparent. Therefore, it cannot be acquired by
Costabella. This Court is guided by Bogo-Medellin Milling prescription. In Louisiana, it has also been held that a right of
Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals53 (Bogo-Medellin), involving the passage over another's land cannot be claimed by prescription
construction of a railroad track to a sugar mill. In Bogo- because this easement is discontinuous and can be established
Medellin, this Court discussed the discontinuous nature of an only by title.
easement of right of way and the rule that the same cannot be In this case, the presence of railroad tracks for the passage of
acquired by prescription, to wit: petitioner's trains denotes the existence of an apparent but
Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either by discontinuous easement of right of way. And under Article
virtue of a title or by prescription of ten years. 622 of the Civil Code, discontinuous easements, whether
apparent or not, may be acquired only by title. Unfortunately,
The trial court and the Court of Appeals both upheld this view petitioner Bomedco never acquired any title over the use of
for the reason that the railroad right of way was, according to the railroad right of way whether by law, donation,
them, continuous and apparent in nature. The more or less testamentary succession or contract. Its use of the right of
permanent railroad tracks were visually apparent and way, however long, never resulted in its acquisition of the
they continuously occupied the subject strip of land from 1959 easement because, under Article 622, the discontinuous
(the year the easement granted by Feliciana Santillan to easement of a railroad right of way can only be acquired by
petitioner expired). Thus, with the lapse of the 10-year title and not by prescription.54
Applying Bogo-Medellin to the case at bar, the conclusion is jurisprudence states that an easement of right of way cannot be
inevitable that the road in dispute is a discontinuous easement acquired by prescription.
notwithstanding that the same may be apparent. To reiterate,
easements are either continuous or discontinuous according We hold the same view on the issue of acquisition of an
to the manner they are exercised, not according to the easement of right of way by laches. To our mind, settled
presence of apparent signs or physical indications of the jurisprudence on the application of the principle of estoppel by
existence of such easements. Hence, even if the road in laches militates against the acquisition of an easement of right
dispute has been improved and maintained over a number of of way by laches.
years, it will not change its discontinuous nature but simply Laches is a doctrine in equity and our courts are basically
make the same apparent. To stress, Article 622 of the New courts of law and not courts of equity; equity, which has been
Civil Code states that discontinuous easements, whether aptly described as "justice outside legality," should be applied
apparent or not, may be acquired only by virtue of a title. only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law;
On Laches and Estoppel Aeguetas nunguam contravenit legis. Based on this principle,
we find that the positive mandate of Article 622 of the Civil
Petitioner argues that estoppel and laches bar respondents Code - the statutory provision requiring title as basis for the
from exercising ownership rights over the properties traversed acquisition of an easement of a right of way - precludes the
by the road in dispute. In support of said argument, petitioner application of the equitable principle of laches.57
posits that BISUDECO had been peacefully and continuously
using the road without any complaint or opposition on the part This Court agrees with the CA. The fact that the law is
of the respondents for almost twenty years. Respondents, on categorical that discontinuous easements cannot be acquired
the other hand, claim that they merely tolerated the use of their by prescription militates against petitioner's claim of laches.
land as BISUDECO was a government-owned and controlled To stress, discontinuous easements can only be acquired by
corporation and considering that the disputed road was title. More importantly, whether or not the elements of laches
constructed during the time of Martial Law. are present is a question involving a factual determination by
the trial court.58 Hence, the same being a question of fact, it
There is no absolute rule on what constitutes laches. It is a rule cannot be the proper subject of herein petition. On the other
of equity and applied not to penalize neglect or sleeping on hand, as to the issue of estoppel, this Court likewise agrees
one's rights, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do with the finding of the CA that petitioner did not present any
so would result in a clearly unfair situation. The question of evidence that would show an admission, representation or
laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and conduct by respondents that will give rise to estoppel.59
each case must be decided according to its particular
circumstances.55 It is the better rule that courts, under the Classification of the Road in Dispute as a Barangay Road
principle of equity, should not be guided or bound strictly by Petitioner argues that the CA erred when it disregarded the
the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches if wrong or classification of the road in question as a barangay road. In
injustice will result.56 support of said argument, petitioner presented Exhibit Q, a
In herein petition, the CA denied petitioner's argument in the Tax Declaration or Field Appraisal and Assessment
wise: Sheet60 (1991 FAAS) with Survey Number 1688-40 and PIN
No. 026-01-009-08-037, dated April 30, 1991, which they
As previously explained in our Decision, the applicable law is claim proves that the road in dispute is already a barangay
Article 622 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which road.
provides:
The same is again a question of fact which cannot be the
Art. 622. Continuous non-apparent easements, and proper subject of herein petition. Petitioner cannot have this
discontinuous ones, whether apparent or not, may be acquired Court re-examine the evidentiary value of the documents it
only by virtue of a title. presented before the RTC as the same is not a function of this
Court. In any case, after a closer scrutiny of the 1991 FAAS,
The eminent jurist, former Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, this Court holds that the same is insufficient to prove
opines that this provision seeks to prevent the imposition of a petitioner's claim.
burden on a tenement based purely on the generosity,
tolerance and spirit of neighborliness of the owners thereof. Respondents, in their Comment,61 argue against the
classification of the road in dispute as a barangay road in the
We applied the cited provision to the case in ruling that no wise:
easement of right of way was acquired; based on the evidence
presented, the plaintiff-appellant failed to satisfactorily prove Petitioner also stated that the Honorable Court of Appeals fails
the existence of an agreement evidencing any right or title to to consider the fact that the owner of the road in question is
use the disputed road. We additionally rejected the plaintiff- the Municipality of Pili in the Province of Camarines Sur and
appellant's position that it had acquired the easement of right as proof of such claim they presented and marked as Exhibit
of way through acquisitive prescription, as settled Q, tax declaration no. 009-756 or Annex D of their Petition.
However, private respondents wish to call the attention of this Based on the foregoing, petitioner's attempt to refute the
Honorable Court to the following: contents of the 1995 FAAS by claiming that the lands of
Edmundo are not involved in the case at bar must fail. It is
A. Tax Declaration No. 009-828 attached as Annex C-6 of the clear that respondents are the tenant-beneficiaries of the lands
Verified Petition declared in the name of Edmundo Obias (one of Edmundo under PD 27; hence, contrary to the claim of
of the private respondents); petitioner, the lands of Edmundo are the subject matter of
b. Actual Use portion of said Annex C-6 marked as Exh. No. herein petition.
N-6-a-1 which states "Road Lot (BISUDECO Road)"; In addition, it is curious that petitioner relies on the 1991
andcralawlibrary FAAS yet finds exception to the contents of the 1995 FAAS.
c. The Memoranda portion in the second page of Annex C-6 After a closer scrutiny of both documents, it appears to this
which states: "Revised to declare the property in The name of Court that the land described in the 1991 FAAS is also the
the rightful owner, Edmundo Obias based from the approved same land described in the 1995 FAAS. Both FAAS involve
subdivision plan, Bsd-05-000055 (OLT) & technical land measuring 4,773 square meters. Likewise, both FAAS
descriptions. Likewise area was made to conform with the said have the same PIN Number (026-01-009-08-037) and Survey
subdivision plan from 4,773 sq.m. to 11,209 sq.m. Number (1688-40). Accordingly, the annotation contained in
the 1995 FAAS, to the effect that a "BISUDECO road" does
Obviously, the alleged Exhibit Q of the Petitioner is an not belong to the Municipality of Pili, serves to weaken
erroneous tax declaration, thus, negates the claim of the petitioner's claim.???
Petitioner that the same is owned by the Municipality of Pili
and has been declared a barangay road. Private respondents
cannot understand why the herein Petitioner alleged this
matter and used it as a proof to support their claim when they
are already in possession of a tax declaration correcting the
same and even attached the same as part of their Petition.62
xxx
The antecedent facts are as follows: In a Decision dated August 19, 2002, the trial court ordered
the cancellation of the encumbrance of voluntary easement of
Petitioner Unisource Commercial and Development right of way in favor of the dominant estate owned by
Corporation is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered respondents. It found that the dominant estate has no more use
by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1762534 of the for the easement since it has another adequate outlet to a
Register of Deeds of Manila. The title contains a public road which is Matienza Street. The dispositive portion
memorandum of encumbrance of a voluntary easement which of the decision reads:
has been carried over from the Original Certificate of Title of
Encarnacion S. Sandico. The certified English translation5 of IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby
the annotation reads: orders the cancellation of the Memorandum of Encumbrance
annotated in TCT No. 176253 which granted a right of way in
By order dated 08 October 1924 of the Court of First Instance favor of the person named therein and, upon the finality of this
of Manila, Chamber IV (AP-7571/T-23046), it is declared that decision, the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila is hereby
Francisco Hidalgo y Magnifico has the right to open doors in directed to cancel said encumbrance.
the course of his lot described as Lot No. 2, Block 2650 of the
map that has been exhibited, towards the left of the Callejon With respect to the other prayers in the petition, considering
that is used as a passage and that appears as adjacent to the that the same are mere incidents to the exercise by the owners
said Lot 2 and to pass through the land of Encarnacion of right of their ownership which they could well do without
Sandico y Santana, until the bank of the estero that goes to the the Court’s intervention, this Court sees no need to
Pasig River, and towards the right of the other Callejon that is specifically rule thereon. The Court cannot award plaintiff’s
situated between the said Lot 2 and Lot 4 of the same Block claims for damages and attorney’s fees for lack of sufficient
N.6 bases therefor.
As further alleged in the Complaint, the building constructed The trial then ensued, with the Sps. Garcia presenting their
on Lot 1 is taller than the Sps. Garcia's one-storey residential testimonial and documentary evidence.
house. As such, the Sps. Santos' building allegedly obstructed
The Sps. Santos' Demurrer to Evidence (CA-G.R. SP No.
the Sps. Garcia's right to light, air, and view. The Sps. Garcia
06176)
bemoaned how, prior to the construction on Lot 1, they
received enough bright and natural light from their windows.
After the Sps. Garcia rested their case, the Sps. Santos filed a
The construction allegedly rendered the Sps. Garcia's house
Motion to Dismiss (By Way of Demurrer to Evidence) 11 which
dark such that they are unable to do their normal undertakings
the RTC denied in its Order12 dated April 28, 2011.
in the bedroom, living room and other areas of the house
without switching on their lights. The Sps. Garcia likewise The Sps. Santos then assailed the RTC's denial of their
alleged that the said structure constructed on Lot 1 is at a demurrer to evidence by filing a petition for certiorari13 under
distance of less than three meters away from the boundary Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. The petition was
line, in alleged violation of their easement. Furthermore, the raffled to the Twentieth Division and was docketed as CA-
Sps. Santos allegedly m de excavations on Lot 1 without G.R. SP No. 06176.
providing sufficient lateral support to the concrete perimeter
fence of the Sps. Garcia. In its Decision14 dated May 20, 2013, the CA, Twentieth
Division denied the certiorari petition of the Sps. Santos for
Hence, in their Complaint, aside from asking for damages, the failing to prove that the RTC committed grave abuse of
Sps. Garcia prayed that: the RTC declare them as having discretion in denying the respondents' demurrer to evidence.
acquired the easement of light, air, and view against Lot 1; the
respondents be prohibited from constructing any structure on The respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration15 dated
Lot 1 taller than the Sps. Garcia's one-storey residential house; June 17, 2013, which was denied by the CA, Special Former
the respondents be prohibited from building any structure on Twentieth Division in its Resolution16 dated February 22,
Lot 1 at a distance of less than three meters from the boundary 2016. On March 31, 2016, the Decision dated May 20, 2013
line; and the respondents be prohibited from making rendered by the CA, Twentieth Division became final and
excavations on Lot 1 that deprive sufficient lateral support to executory.17
the fence located on the subject property. Afterwards, the trial ensued before the RTC, with the Sps.
8
On February 19, 2009, the RTC issued an Order granting a Santos presenting their evidence.
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the Sps. Santos The Ruling of the RTC
from further undertaking further construction work on Lot 1.
The TRO was eventually lifted on March 20, 2009.9 In its Decision18 dated May 28, 2015, the RTC ruled in favor
of the Sps. Santos and dismissed the Complaint. The
In their Amended Answer with Counterclaim10 dated February dispositive portion of the aforesaid Decision reads:cralawred
27, 2009, the respondents asserted that Tan was incorrectly
impleaded, denying that Tan is involved whatsoever in the WHEREFORE, EVERYTHING CONSIDERED, the
matter at hand, with the latter not being the registered owner herein complaint is hereby DISMISSED, the counterclaims
of Lot 1. are likewise dismissed.
Further, the respondents argued that the Sps. Garcia failed to Costs de oficio.
allege how they acquired the easement of light and view either
by prescription or title. The respondents maintained that the SO ORDERED.19
mere presence of windows on the one-storey house of the Sps. chanRoblesvirtualLaw1ibrary
Garcia in itself does not give rise to an easement by title,
stressing that there was no tenement standing on Lot 1 at the In sum, the RTC held that the Sps. Garcia never acquired any
time of the construction of the one-storey house standing on easement of light and view either by title or by prescription.
the subject property. The respondents also argued that the Sps.
Garcia also failed to acquire an easement by prescription
Hence, the Sps. Garcia appealed the RTC's Decision before The argument is unmeritorious.
the CA, Special 18th Division.20 The appeal was docketed as
CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 05701. The doctrine of the law of the case states that whatever has
once been irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule
The Ruling of the CA, Special 18th Division of decision between the same parties in the same case
continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general
In its assailed Decision, the CA, Special 18th Division denied principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision
the appeal for lack of merit, the dispositive portion of which was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the
reads:cralawred court.30
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 28 May Citing Mercury Group of Co., Inc. v. Home Dev't Mutual
2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Fund,31 the CA, Special 18th Division was correct in
Branch 31 in Civil Case No. 09-30023 is AFFIRMED. explaining that the aforesaid doctrine applies only when there
SO ORDERED.21 has been a prior decision on the merits:cralawred
chanRoblesvirtualLaw1ibrary "Law of the case" has been defined as the opinion delivered on
a former appeal. . . . It is a rule of general application that
Agreeing in toto with the RTC, the CA held that the Sps. the decision of an appellate court in a case is the law to the
Garcia never acquired an easement of light and view under the case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent
pertinent provisions of the Civil Code. proceedings in the case in both the trial and appellate courts
and no question necessarily involved and decided on that
The Sps. Garcia filed a Motion for Reconsideration22 dated
appeal will be considered on a second appeal or writ of error
August 4, 2016, which was denied by the CA, Former Special
in the same case, provided the facts and issues are
18th Division in its assailed Resolution.
substantially the same as those on which the first question
Hence, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by rested and, according to some authorities, provided the
the Sps. Garcia under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. decision is on the merits. x x x32
The respondents filed their Comment (To the Petition dated chanRoblesvirtualLaw1ibrary
October 28, 2016)23 dated June 20, 2017, to which the Sps.
The CA, Twentieth Division's final and executory Decision
Garcia responded with their Reply24 dated November 9, 2017.
dated May 20, 2013 relied upon by the Sps. Garcia was not a
Issues final and executory decision on the merits of the case as it
dealt solely on the issue of whether the RTC committed grave
Stripped to its core, the instant Petition presents two main abuse of discretion in denying the respondents' demurrer to
issues for the Court's disposition: (1) whether, in view of the evidence.
CA, Twentieth Division's final and executory Decision dated
May 20, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 06176, the doctrine of the In fact, the CA, Twentieth Division was unequivocal in
law of the case finds application; and (2) whether the Sps. explaining that it discussed "the issue on easement of light, air
Garcia have acquired an easement of light and view with and view not so much to address the merit of the petition but
respect to Lot 1 owned by the Sps. Santos. to illustrate the extent by which [the Sps. Garcia] have
relentlessly pursued their claim."33
The Court's Ruling
Hence, the first issue posed by the Sps. Garcia is denied.
In deciding the merits of the instant Petition, the Court shall
resolve the issues in seriatim. II. The easement of light and view imposed on Lot 1
acquired by the Sps. Garcia
I. The doctrine of the law of the case not applicable in
the instant case Having disposed of the first issue, the Court shall now decide
whether the Sps. Garcia have indeed acquired an easement of
In the instant Petition, the Sps. Garcia make the argument that light and view, imposing a burden on Lot 1 not to obstruct the
the doctrine of the law of the case applies in the instant case, subject property's free access to light and view. The Court
considering that the CA, Twentieth Division's final and notes that the issues surrounding the alleged easement of
executory Decision dated May 20, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. lateral and subjacent support were no longer pursued by the
06176 expressly and categorically found that ''[t]here is an Sps. Garcia in the instant Petition. Hence, the Court's Decision
acquired easement of light, air and view in favor of [the Sps. shall focus exclusively on the easement of light and view
Garcia]"25 based on Article 624 of the Civil Code26 and the purportedly acquired by the Sps. Garcia as against the Sps.
decided cases of Amor v. Florentino27 and Gargantos v. Tan Santos' Lot 1.
Yanon,28 and that "the contention of [the respondents] that the
mere opening of windows and doors does not constitute an Considering that the jurisprudence on the concept of
easement is therefore refuted."29 easements of light and view is not in abundance, this is an
opportune time for the Court to explain clearly and resolutely As held by jurisprudence, the easement of light and view is
the rules regarding the acquisition of an easement of light and intrinsically intertwined with the easement of the servient
view vis-a-vis several parcels of land owned by separate estate not to build higher or altius non tollendi. These two
owners that were previously owned by a single owner, and the necessarily go together "because an easement of light and
distances that must be observed in relation thereto. view requires that the owner of the servient estate shall not
build to a height that will obstruct the window."44
The Concept of Easements and the Easement of Light and
View In the instant case, the Sps. Garcia assert that since they have
acquired by title an easement of light and view, the owner of
According to Article 613 of the Civil Code, an easement or the adjacent servient estate, i.e., the Sps. Santos, is proscribed
servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for from building a structure that obstructs the window of their
the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different one-storey house.
owner. The immovable in favor of which the easement is
established is called the dominant estate; that which is subject Classification of Easements as Positive and Negative
thereto, the servient estate. Easements
As defined by jurisprudence, an easement is "a real right on Article 616 of the Civil Code states that easements may be
another's property, corporeal and immovable, whereby the classified into positive and negative easements. A positive
owner of the latter must refrain from doing or allowing easement is one which imposes upon the owner of the servient
somebody else to do or something to be done on his property, estate the obligation of allowing something to be done or of
for the benefit of another person or tenement. Easements are doing it himself. On the other hand, a negative easement is
established either by law or by the will of the owner. The that which prohibits the owner of the servient estate from
former are called legal, and the latter, voluntary doing something which he could lawfully do if the easement
easements."34 An easement has been described as "a real right did not exist.
which burdens a thing with a prestation consisting of
determinate servitudes for the exclusive enjoyment of a person What is the significance of determining whether an easement
who is not its owner or of a tenement belonging to another."35 is positive or negative? Such determination is consequential in
determining how an easement is acquired.
Legal easements are ones imposed by law, and which have,
for their object, either public use or interest of private According to Article 621 of the Civil Code, in order to acquire
persons,36 as opposed to voluntary easements that are easements by prescription in positive easements, the
established by the agreements of the parties. The different prescriptive period shall commence from the day on which the
legal easements are: (a) easement relating to waters; (b) right owner of the dominant estate, or the person who may have
of way; (c) party wall; (d) light and view; (e) drainage; (f) made use of the easement, commenced to exercise it upon the
intermediate distances; (g) easement against nuisance; and (h) servient estate.
lateral and subjacent support.37 With respect to negative easements, the prescriptive period
The legal easement called easement of light and view refers to shall commence from the day on which the owner of the
an easement whereby the dominant estate enjoys the right to dominant estate forbade, by an instrument acknowledged
have free access to light, a little air, and a view overlooking before a notary public, the owner of the servient estate, from
the adjoining estate, i.e., the servient estate.38 executing an act which would be lawful without the easement.
The easement of light and view has two components. The Easement of Light and View as a Positive and Negative
easement of light or jus luminum has the purpose of admitting Easement
light and a little air, as in the case of small windows, not more How then is an easement of light and view classified? Is it a
than 30 centimeters square, at the height of the ceiling joists or positive or a negative easement?
immediately under the ceiling.39 On the other hand, the
easement of view or servidumbre prospectus40 has the The answer is it may be both; an easement of light and view
principal purpose of affording view, as in the case of full or may either be positive or negative.
regular windows overlooking the adjoining estate.41
As a general rule, an easement of light and view is a positive
Explained otherwise, the easement of light is the right to make one if the window or opening is situated in a party wall, while
openings under certain conditions in order to receive light it is a negative one if the window or opening is thru one's
from another's tenement while the easement of view is the own wall, i.e., thru a wall of the dominant estate.45 However,
right to make openings or windows, to enjoy the view through "[e]ven if the window is on one's own wall, still the easement
the estate of another and the power to prevent all constructions would be positive if the window is on a balcony or projection
or works which would obstruct such view or make the same extending over into the adjoining land."46
difficult.42 The easement of view is broader than the easement
In the instant case, it is not disputed that the windows and
of light because the latter is always included in the former.43
other openings, which are allegedly now prevented from
receiving light and view due to the structure built by the Sps. x x x. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between
Santos on Lot 1, are made in the wall of Sps. Garcia's one- two estates, established or maintained by the owner of both,
storey-house. There is no party wall alleged to be co-owned by shall be considered, should either of them be alienated, as a
the parties. title in order that the easement may continue actively and
passively, unless, at the time the ownership of the two estates
In the very early case of Cortes v. Yu-Tibo,47 the Court held is divided, the contrary should be provided in the title of
that the easement of light and view in the case of windows conveyance of either of them, or the sign aforesaid should be
opened in one's own wall is negative. As such easement is a removed before the execution of the deed. This provision shall
negative one, it cannot be acquired by prescription except also apply in case of the division of a thing owned in common
where sufficient time of possession has elapsed after the by two or more persons.
owner of the dominant estate, by a formal act, has prohibited
the owner of the servient estate from doing something which The aforesaid article is based on Article 541 of the Spanish
would be lawful but for the easement.48 Civil Code, which reads:cralawred
The phrase "formal act" would require not merely any writing, x x x. The existence of an apparent sign of an easement
but one executed in due form and/or with solemnity.49 This is between two estates established by the owner of both shall be
expressly stated in Article 668 of the Civil Code which states considered, should one of them be alienated, as a title for the
that the period of prescription for the acquisition of an active and passive continuation of the easement, unless, at the
easement of light and view shall be counted: (1) from the time time of the division of the ownership of the two properties, the
of the opening of the window, if it is through a party wall; or contrary should be expressed in the deed of conveyance of
(2) from the time of the formal prohibition upon the either of them, or the sign is obliterated before the execution
proprietor of the adjoining land or tenement, if the of the instrument.
window is through a wall on the dominant estate.
The mode of acquiring an easement under Article 624 is a
It is from these legal premises that the RTC and CA, Special "legal presumption or apparent sign."53 Article 624 finds
18th Division based their holdings that the Sps. Garcia "never application in situations wherein two or more estates were
acquired an easement of light and view under Article 668 of previously owned by a singular owner, or even a single estate
the Civil Code for failure to serve a notarial prohibition."50 It but with two or more portions being owned by a singular
is not disputed that the Sps. Garcia never sent the Sps. Santos owner.54 Originally, there is no true easement that exists as
any formal notice or notarial prohibition enjoining the latter there is only one owner. Hence, at the outset, no other owner
from constructing any building of higher height on Lot 1. is imposed with a burden.55 Subsequently, one estate or a
Hence, the RTC and CA, Special 18th Division made the portion of the estate is alienated in favor of another person,
conclusion that the Sps. Garcia failed to acquire an easement wherein, in that estate or portion of the estate, an apparent
of light and view in relation to the adjacent Lot 1. visible sign of an easement exists. According to Article 624,
there arises a title to an easement of light and view, even in
Nevertheless, the Court finds that the aforesaid holding of the the absence of any formal act undertaken by the owner of
RTC and CA, Special 18th Division is incorrect in view the dominant estate, if this apparent visible sign, such as
of Article 624 of the Civil Code. the existence of a door and windows, continues to remain
and subsist, unless, at the time the ownership of the two
Article 624 - The Existence of an Apparent Sign of Easement
estates is divided, ( 1) the contrary should be provided in the
between Two Estates formerly owned by a Single Owner
title of conveyance of either of them, or (2) the sign aforesaid
considered a Title to Easement of Light and View
should be removed before the execution of the deed..
While it is a general rule that a window or opening situated on This is precisely the situation that has occurred in the instant
the wall of the dominant estate involves a negative easement, case. Prior to the purchase of the subject property by the Sps.
and, thus, may only be acquired by prescription, tacked from Garcia in 1998, the subject property and its adjoining lot, i.e.,
the time of the formal prohibition upon the proprietor of the Lot 1, were both owned by singular owners, i.e., the Sps.
servient estate, it is not true that all windows or openings Santos. On the subject property, a one-storey house laden with
situated on the wall of the dominant estate may only be several windows and openings was built and the windows and
acquired through prescription. openings remained open. Then on October 1998, the subject
property, together with the one-storey structure, was alienated
Aside from prescription, easements may likewise be acquired
in favor of the Sps. Garcia, while the Sps. Santos retained the
through title.51 The term "title" does not necessarily mean a
adjoining Lot 1.
document. Instead, it refers to a juridical act or law sufficient
to create the encumbrance.52 One such legal proviso which Jurisprudence has recognized that Article 624 is an exception
grants title to an easement is found in Article 624 of the Civil carved out by the Civil Code that must be taken out of the
Code. coverage of the general rule that an easement of light and view
in the case of windows opened in one's own wall is a negative
Article 624 of the Civil Code reads:cralawred
easement that may only be acquired by prescription, tacked
from a formal prohibition relayed to the owner of the servient The word "active" used in the decision quoted in
estate. classifying the particular enjoyment of light referred to
therein, presupposes on the part of the owner of the
As explained in Amor v. Florentino, the very decision dominant estate a right to such enjoyment arising, in the
in Cortes v. YuTibo, while holding that the easement of light particular case passed upon by that decision, from the
and view in situations involving openings situated on the wall voluntary act of the original owner of the two houses, by
of the dominant estate is a negative easement that may only be which he imposed upon one of them an easement for the
acquired by prescription tacked from formal prohibition, benefit of the other. It is well known that easements are
"distinguishes that case from the situation foreseen in established, among other cases, by the will of the owners.
article 541 [now Article 624 of the Civil Code]."56 (Article 536 of the Code) It was an act which was, in fact,
In Cortes v. Yu-Tibo, there were two different owners of two respected and acquiesced in by the new owner of the servient
separate houses from the beginning, which is a situation estate, since he purchased it without making any stipulation
different from that presented under Article 624 where there is against the easement existing thereon, but, on the contrary,
only one original owner of the two structures. Cortes v. Yu- acquiesced in the continuance of the apparent sign thereof. As
Tibo itself explicitly differentiates the situation presented is stated in the decision itself, "It is a principle of law that
therein and the special situation contemplated under then upon a division of a tenement among various persons—in the
Article 541 of the Spanish Civil Code, which is now Article absence of any mention in the contract of a mode of
624 of the Civil Code, wherein no formal act is needed to enjoyment different from that to which the former owner was
acquire easement of light and view:cralawred accustomed—such easements as may be necessary for the
continuation of such enjoyment are understood to subsist." It
x x x It is true that the supreme court of Spain, in its decisions will be seen, then, that the phrase "active enjoyment" involves
of February 7 and May 5, 1896, has classified as positive an idea directly opposed to the enjoyment which is the result
easements of lights which were the object of the suits in which of a mere tolerance on the part of the adjacent owner, and
these decisions were rendered in cassation, and from these it which, as it is not based upon an absolute, enforceable right,
might be believed at first glance[,] that the former holdings of may be considered as of a merely passive
the supreme court upon this subject had been overruled. But character. Therefore, the decision in question is not in
this is not so, as a matter of fact, inasmuch as there is no conflict with the former rulings of the supreme court of
conflict between these decisions and the former decisions Spain upon the subject, inasmuch as it deals with an
above cited. easement of light established by the owner of the servient
estate, and which continued in force after the estate was
In the first of the suits referred to, the question turned
sold, in accordance with the special provisions of article
upon two houses which had formerly belonged to the same
541 of the Civil Code.57
owner, who established a service of light on one of them
for the benefit of the other. These properties were chanRoblesvirtualLaw1ibrary
subsequently conveyed to two different persons, but at the
time of the separation of the property nothing was said as to Application of the Court's Decisions in Amor v. Florentino,
the discontinuance of the easement, nor were the windows and Gargantos v. Tan Yanon to the Instant Case
which constituted the visible sign thereof removed. The new
owner of the house subject to the easement endeavored to free The rulings of the Court in Amor v. Florentino and Gargantos
it from the incumbrance, notwithstanding the fact that the v. Tan Yanon, which involve situations that are almost
easement had been in existence for thirty-five years, and completely analogous to the instant case, are enlightening.
alleged that the owner of the dominant estate had not
In these cases, like the case at hand, several properties were
performed any act of opposition which might serve as a
once owned by a single owner, wherein in one of the
starting point for the acquisition of a prescriptive title. The
properties, a structure with windows and other openings was
supreme court, in deciding this case, on the 7th of February,
put up. Subsequently, the adjacent property was transferred to
1896, held that the easement in this particular case was
a different owner, wherein a structure was built thereon
positive, because it consisted in the active enjoyment of the
obstructing the windows and other openings found on the
light. This doctrine is doubtless based upon article 541 of
adjacent lot.
the Code, which is of the following tenor: "The existence of
apparent sign of an easement between two tenements, In Amor v. Florentino, one Maria Florentino (Maria) owned a
established by the owner of both of them, shall be considered, house and a camarin or warehouse located in Vigan, Ilocos
should one be sold, as a title for the active and passive Sur. The house had, on the north side, three windows on the
continuance of the easement, unless, at the time of the division upper storey, and a fourth one on the ground floor. Through
of the ownership of both tenements, the contrary should be these windows, the house received light and air from the
expressed in the deed of conveyance of either of them, or such adjacent lot where the camarin stood.
sign is taken away before the execution of such deed."
On September 6, 1885, Maria made a will, devising the house
and the land on which it was situated to Gabriel Florentino,
one of the respondents therein, and to Jose Florentino, father division of the property, inasmuch as a predial or real
of the other respondents therein. In said will, the testatrix also easement is one of the rights in another's property, or jura in
devised the warehouse and the lot where it was situated to re aliena and nobody can have an easement over his own
Maria Encarnacion Florentino (Maria Encarnacion). Upon the property, nemini sua res servit. In the instant case, therefore,
death of the testatrix in 1892, nothing was said or done by the when the original owner, Maria Florentino, opened the
devisees in regard to the windows in question. On July 14, windows which received light and air from another lot
1911, Maria Encarnacion sold her lot and the warehouse belonging to her, she was merely exercising her right of
thereon to the petitioner therein, Severo Amor (Amor). In dominion. Consequently, the moment of the constitution of the
January 1938, therein Amor destroyed the old warehouse and easement of light and view, together with that of altius non
started to build instead a two-storey house. tollendi, was the time of the death of the original owner of
both properties. At that point, the requisite that there must be
In deciding the case, the Court first explained that easements two proprietors — one of the dominant estate and another of
may be acquired either through title or prescription and the servient estate was — fulfilled.59
enumerated the different acts by which an easement may be
acquired by virtue of title, namely: (1) a deed of recognition chanRoblesvirtualLaw1ibrary
by the owner of the servient estate; (2) a final judgment; and
(3) an apparent sign between two estates, established by Subsequently, in 1960, the Court rendered its Decision in the
the owner of both, referring to Article 541 (now Article case of Gargantos v. Tan Yanon.
624) of the Civil Code. Citing decisions of the Supreme In the said case, the late Francisco Sanz (Sanz) was the former
Tribunal of Spain, the Court explained that "under article 541 owner of a parcel of land with the buildings and improvements
[now Article 624] of the Civil Code, the visible and thereon, situated in the poblacion of Romblon. He subdivided
permanent sign of an easement 'is the title that the lot into three (3) and then sold each portion to different
characterizes its existence' ('es el titulo caracteristico de su persons. One portion was purchased by Guillermo Tengtio
existencia.')"58 who subsequently sold it to Vicente Uy Veza. Another
Applying Article 541 (now Article 624) of the Civil Code, the portion, with the house of strong materials thereon, was sold
Court held that the existence of the four windows in 1927 to Tan Yanon, the respondent therein. This house had
constructed on the subject house was an apparent sign of on its northeastern side, doors and windows overlooking the
an easement of light and view, the subsistence of which after third portion, which, together with the camarin and small
the lots were segregated to different owners created an building thereon, after passing through several hands, was
easement of light and view by title without the need of any finally acquired by Juan Gargantos (Gargantos), the petitioner
formal notice to the servient estate. The Court explained therein. In 1955, Gargantos tore down the roof of
that the moment of the constitution of the easement of light the camarin and constructed a combined residential house and
and view, together with that of altius non tollendi, was the warehouse on his lot.
time of the transfer of the other property adjacent to the The Court held that Article 538 (now Article 621) of the Civil
lot where the windows were located, which, in that case, was Code and the doctrine in Cortes v. Yu-Tibo that the easement
the death of the original owner of both properties:cralawred of light and view in situations involving openings situated on
It will thus be seen that under article 541 the existence of the the wall of the dominant estate is a negative easement that
apparent sign in the instant case, to wit, the four windows may only be acquired by prescription tacked from formal
under consideration, had for all legal purposes the same prohibition "[is] not applicable herein because the two estates,
character and effect as a title of acquisition of the that now owned by petitioner, and that owned by respondent,
easement of light and view by the respondents upon the were formerly owned by just one person, Francisco Sanz."60
death of the original owner, Maria Florentino. Upon the The Court further explained that the existence of the doors and
establishment of that easement of light and view, the windows on the northeastern side of the house was equivalent
concomitant and concurrent easement of altius non to a title, for the visible and permanent sign of an easement
tollendi was also constituted, the heir of the camarin and its was the title that characterized its existence:cralawred
lot, Maria Encarnacion Florentino, not having objected to the
existence of the windows. The theory of article 541, of making x x x It was Sanz who introduced improvements on both
the existence of the apparent sign equivalent to a title, when properties. On that portion presently belonging to respondent,
nothing to the contrary is said or done by the two owners, is he constructed a house in such a way that the northeastern side
sound and correct, because as it happens in this case, there is thereof extends to the wall of the camarin on the portion now
an implied contract between them that the easements in belonging to petitioner. On said northeastern side of the house,
question should be constituted. there are windows and doors which serve as passages for light
and view. These windows and doors were in existence when
Analyzing article 541 further, it seems that its wording is not respondent purchased the house and lot from Sanz. The deed
quite felicitous when it says that the easement should of sale did not provide that the easement of light and view
continue. Sound juridical thinking rejects such an idea would not be established. This then is precisely the case
because, properly speaking, the easement is not created till the covered by Article 541, O.C.C. (now Article 624, N.C.C.)
which provides that the existence of an apparent sign of milieu of Amor and Gargantos."63 According to the CA,
easement between two estates, established by the Special 18th Division, "[t]he rulings
proprietor of both, shall be considered, if one of them is in Amor and Gargantos appear to be premised on the fact that
alienated, as a title so that the easement will continue the previous owner made improvements on both properties
actively and passively, unless at the time the ownership of prior to the transfer of one of these properties."64
the two estates is divided, the contrary is stated in the deed
of alienation of either of them, or the sign is made to After a close reading of Amor v. Florentino and Gargantos v.
disappear before the instrument is executed. The existence Tan Yanon, the Court holds that the RTC and CA, Special
of the doors and windows on the northeastern side of the 18th Division were mistaken in not applying the aforesaid
aforementioned house, is equivalent to a title, for the cases to the instant case.
visible and permanent sign of an easement is the title that First and foremost, the subject Civil Code provision dealt with
characterizes its existence (Amor vs. Florentino, 74 Phil., by these two cases, i.e., Article 624 (formerly Article 541) of
403). It should be noted, however, that while the law declares the Civil Code, merely states that what is involved in this
that the easement is to "continue" the easement actually arises particular situation is "an apparent sign of easement between
for the first time only upon alienation of either estate, two estates."65
inasmuch as before that time there is no easement to speak of,
there being but one owner of both estates (Article 530, O.C.C., There is nothing in the aforesaid provision that requires the
now Article 613, N.C.C.).61 presence or establishment of structures or improvements on
both estates at the time the ownership of the two estates is
chanRoblesvirtualLaw1ibrary divided. The conclusion of the CA, Special 18th Division that
From Amor v. Florentino and Gargantos v. Tan Yanon, read Article 624 applies only when the (future) servient estate has
together with Cortes v. Yu-Tibo, it has been jurisprudentially an improvement thereon at the time of the transfer of the
established that, in a situation wherein Article 624 of the Civil ownership of either or both of the estates finds no textual
Code applies, there arises an easement if an apparent sign of support. What the law merely states is that there must be two
the existence of an easement, i.e., the existence of windows estates that were once owned by one owner, regardless of the
and openings on the dominant estate, continues to remain existence of improvements in the (future) servient estate. What
even after the transfer of the property to the new law requires is that, at the time the ownership of the estates is
owner, unless such apparent sign is removed or if there is divided, there must be an apparent sign of easement that
an agreement to the contrary.62 exists, such as a window, door, or other opening, in the
dominant estate.
To reiterate, such is exactly the situation attendant in the
instant case. Lot 1 and the subject property were once owned As exhaustively explained by recognized Civil Law
by one owner, i.e., the Sps. Santos. On the subject property, a Commentator, former CA Justice Eduardo P. Caguioa, the
one-storey house with windows and other openings that accept existence of an easement of light and view under Article 624
light and view from Lot 1, which was idle at that time, was is established as long as (1) there exists an apparent sign of
built. Subsequently, in 1998, the subject property was servitude between two estates; (2) the sign of the easement
alienated in favor of the Sps. Garcia. It is undisputed that the must be established by the owner of both tenements; (3) either
windows and other openings on the one-storey house subsisted or both of the estates are alienated by the owner; and (4) at the
and remained open. It is also not disputed that there was no time of the alienation nothing is stated in the document of
agreement made by the parties whatsoever to the effect that alienation contrary to the easement nor is the sign of the
the windows and openings of the Sps. Garcia's house should easement removed before the execution of the
be closed or removed. document:cralawred
Hence, in accordance with Article 624 of the Civil Code, from x x x In this case[,] the owner of two estates has established an
the time the Sps. Santos transferred the subject property to the apparent sign of the easement between two estates. It is
Sps. Garcia, there arose by title an easement of light and view, apparent inasmuch as since it is the owner establishing it in his
placing a burden on the servient estate, i.e., Lot 1, to allow the own property in favor of an estate belonging to himself there
Sps. Garcia's residence unobstructed access to light and view, is no easement but merely an exercise of the right of
subject to certain limitations as will be discussed hereunder. ownership. Should, however, one or both of the estates be
alienated or after partition in case of a property owned in
The core of the RTC and CA, Special 18th Division's common, then that sign established by the owner will
Decisions dismissing the Sps. Garcia's Complaint centers on constitute a title for the establishment of the easement, both
the argument that the cases of Amor v. Florentino, actively or passively, except in case the contrary should be
and Gargantos v. Tan Yanon are not applicable to the instant provided in the document of conveyance of either estate or in
case because in the latter, "the previous owner only made case before the alienation is made the sign is removed by the
improvements on the [subject property] of [the Sps. Garcia] at owner. Hence, in order that this article will apply[,] the
the time of the transfer of the alleged dominant estate to [the following are the requisites: (1) That there exist an apparent
Sps. Garcia.] This takes the instant case out of the factual sign of servitude between two estates; (2) That the sign of
the easement be established by the owner of both the warehouse, was actually totally demolished and that, after
tenements because the article will not apply when the the transfer of ownership of the dominant estate, a new two-
easement is established by a person different from the storey house was thereafter built in its stead. This does not
owner; (3) That either or both of the estates are alienated differ substantially from a situation wherein new constructions
by the owner; and (4) That at the time of the alienation are done in the servient estate that was previously completely
nothing is stated in the document of alienation contrary to empty.
the easement nor is the sign of the easement removed
before the execution of the document.66 Further, in Gargantos v. Tan Yanon, the Court, in applying
Article 624 of the Civil Code, held that "[b]y reason of this
chanRoblesvirtualLaw1ibrary easement, petitioner cannot construct on his land any
building."67 The Court did not say that the petitioner therein
It is evident that the prior existence of another structure or was barred only from adding or increasing the height of
building in the other estate, in addition to the apparent sign of existing structures or improvements.
easement existing on the dominant estate, is not a requirement
for the application of Article 624. What is clear from the Hence, considering the foregoing discussion, the RTC and
foregoing is that the hallmark of an easement of light and view CA, Special 18th Division committed an error in holding that
established by an apparent sign of easement under Article 624 the Sps. Garcia failed to acquire an easement of light and view
is the existence of an apparent sign of servitude between two in the instant case. By virtue of Article 624 of the Civil Code
estates, such as a window, door, or any other opening, that was and applicable jurisprudence, the Court holds that the Sps.
established by the common owner of both estates prior to the Garcia have acquired an easement of light and view by title
division of ownership of these estates. despite the lack of any formal notice or prohibition made upon
the owner of the servient estate.
Second, upon close reading of Amor v.
Florentino and Gargantos v. Tan Yanon, there is no holding The Three-Meter Distance Rule
whatsoever by the Court that the application of Article 624
(formerly Article 541) is restricted to situations wherein the Now that the existence of an easement of light and view has
servient estate previously contained improvements or been established in favor of the Sps. Garcia, the Court shall
structures. The RTC and CA, Special 18th Division failed to now delve on whether to grant Sps. Garcia's prayer that
explain the rationale for making a differentiation as to "respondents should therefore remove from Lot 1 their
situations wherein the servient estate was idle at the time of building or structure which blocks or impedes petitioners' air,
the division of the ownership of the two estates. Instead, the light and view."68
RTC and CA, Special 18th Division merely nitpicked this The Court answers the question with a qualified yes.
singular factual difference and concluded, without sufficient
explanation, that the factual milieu of the instant case differs Based on Articles 66969 and 670 of the Civil Code, there are
from those of Amor v. Florentino and Gargantos v. Tan two kinds of windows: (1) regular or full70 or direct
Yanon. view71 windows, and (2) restricted,72 or oblique or side
view73 windows. As for openings, they may be direct views —
It must be stressed that the presence of a minor factual those openings which are made on a wall parallel or almost
difference does not preclude the application of judicial parallel to the line that divides the estates, in such a way that
precedent. It must be explained how the factual difference in a the neighboring tenement can be seen without putting out or
case makes the doctrine established in the decided case turning the head, or oblique views — those openings in a wall
inapplicable therein. In the instant case, the cases of Amor v. which form an angle to the boundary line, and therefore of
Florentino and Gargantos v. Tan Yanon clearly and plainly necessity requires in order to see the neighboring tenement to
explain that there arises an easement if an apparent sign of the thrust the head out of the opening and look to the right or
existence of an easement, i.e., the existence of windows and left.74 In the case at hand, the openings found on the property
openings on the dominant estate, continues to remain even of the Sps. Garcia offer a direct view of the property of the
after the transfer of the property to the new owner, without respondents Sps. Santos.
making any holding whatsoever that there should have been a
prior structure that was put up on the servient estate. The fact In relation to direct view windows or openings, the Civil Code
that the existence of windows, doors, and other openings on provides two distance rules or distances that must be observed
the dominant estate is the apparent sign of an existing before they can be made or established.
easement is not hinged whatsoever on the presence of
Firstly, there is the two-meter distance rule under Article 670
structures on the adjacent servient estate. In short, the fact in
of the Civil Code, which provides: "[n]o windows, apertures,
the aforesaid cases that the servient estates therein had existing
balconies, or other similar projections which afford a direct
structures prior to the division of ownership is not a significant
view upon or towards an adjoining land or tenement can be
fact that is determinative of the holdings of the Court.
made, without leaving a distance of two meters between the
In fact, the Court notes that in Amor v. Florentino, the wall in which they are made and such contiguous property."
improvement originally constructed on the servient estate, i.e., This Article is to be read in conjunction with Article 671 as
the latter provides the mechanism by which the two-meter To reiterate, as Article 673 states a special rule covering a
distance is to be measured, to wit: "[t]he distances x x x shall situation wherein a dominant estate has acquired a right "to
be measured in cases of direct views from the outer line of the have direct views, balconies or belvederes, overlooking the
wall when the openings do not project, from the outer line of adjoining property, the owner of the servient estate may not
the latter when they do, and in cases of oblique views from the build on his own property except at a distance of at least three
dividing line between the two properties." meters from the boundary line,"76 the two-meter distance as
provided in Article 670 is not enough. The distance between
Hence, under Article 670, which is the general rule, when a the structures erected on the servient estate and the boundary
window or any similar opening affords a direct view of an line of the adjoining estate must be at least three meters.
adjoining land, the distance between the wall in which such
opening is made and the border of the adjoining land should In the instant case, the records show that Roberto Planton
be at least two meters. Baradas (Baradas), the construction project engineer who
supervised the construction of the Sps. Santos' house located
Similarly, Republic Act No. 6541 as revised by Presidential on Lot 1, testified that "[t]here is a distance of two
Decree No. 1096 or the National Building Code of the meters between [the Sps. Garcia's] fence and the wall of [the
Philippines provides the same two-meter distance requirement respondents] spouses Santos."77 Simply stated, the distance
pursuant to Section 708(a), which provides that: "[t]he between the structure erected by the Sps. Santos on Lot 1 and
dwelling shall occupy not more than ninety percent of a comer the boundary line is only two meters, which is less than the
lot and eighty percent of an inside lot, and subject to the three-meter distance required under Article 673.
provisions on Easement of Light and View of the Civil Code
of the Philippines, shall be at least 2 meters from the property Therefore, considering that the Sps. Garcia have acquired by
line." title an easement of light and view in accordance with Article
624 of the Civil Code, the Sps. Santos should necessarily
Secondly, the three-meter distance rule is embodied in Article demolish or renovate portions of their residential building
673 of the Civil Code, which states that whenever by any title so that the three-meter distance rule as mandated under
a right has been acquired to have direct views, balconies or Article 673 of the Civil Code is observed.
belvederes overlooking an adjoining property, the owner of
the servient estate cannot build thereon at less than a WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED.
distance of three meters, not two meters, from the property The Decision dated June 30, 2016 and Resolution dated
line, to be measured in the manner provided in Article 671. October 5, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CV
Article 673 of the Civil Code reads:cralawred No. 05701 are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
Necessarily, the Decision dated May 28, 2015 rendered by the
ART. 673. Whenever by any title a right has been acquired to Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 31 is
have direct views, balconies or belvederes overlooking an likewise REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
adjoining property, the owner of the servient estate cannot
build thereon at less than a distance of three meters to be The Court declares the EXISTENCE OF AN EASEMENT
measured in the manner provided in Article 671. Any OF LIGHT AND VIEW in favor of the petitioners Sps. Tedy
stipulation permitting distances less than those prescribed in and Pilar Garcia. The respondents Sps. Loreta and Winston
Article 670 is void. Santos are hereby ordered to REMOVE from Lot 1 such
portions of their building or structure in order to comply with
Article 673 is the exception to the general rule. In a situation the three-meter rule as mandated under Article 673 of the
wherein an easement is established or recognized by title or Civil Code.
prescription, affording the dominant estate the right to have a
direct view overlooking the adjoining property, i.e., the No pronouncement as to costs.
servient estate, which is the exact situation in the instant case,
the two-meter requirement under Article 670 is not applicable. SO ORDERED.
Instead, Article 673 is the applicable rule as it contemplates
the exact circumstance attendant in the instant case, i.e.,
wherein an easement of view is created by virtue of law.