property week 11

7/27/2019 Property Week 11

1/27

RELOVA V. LAVAREZ- EASEMENT ANDSERVITUDE

The enjoyment of the plaintiff of an easement for the maintenance of an

irrigation aqueduct and a dam on the lands of defendant for a period of

more than 20 years confers title thereto upon the plaintiff by virtue of

prescription and burdens the lands of the defendants with a

corresponding servitude.

FACTS:

The plaintiff is the owner of a tract of rice land which is cultivated with the

aid of water brought from a river through an aqueduct which passes over

the land of the defendants. This was by virtue of an easement the use of

which had been with the plaintiff for more than thirty years. On the land of

the defendants there was a dam with a small gate or aperture in its face

which was used to control the flow of the water in the aqueduct, by

permitting a greater or less quantity to escape in a drainage ditch, also on

the land of the defendants.

One of the defendants completely destroyed the dam and let all the water

escape by the drainage ditch, so that none flowed on the land of the

plaintiff. At the time when the dam was destroyed the plain

five cavanes of land prepared to plant rice, but because of

the water resulting from the destruction of the dam he was

his crop. Defendants claim that the plaintiff is not the owne

watered by the aqueduct of the class known as padagat (r

planted in May). It was also alleged that the plaintiff suffere

by the destruction of the dam, because all the lands of pla

cultivated with the aid of water from the aqueduct are of th

as binanbang (rice lands planted in August or September)

destruction of the dam in May and the consequent failure o

aqueduct at that period did not, and could not, damage the

interfere with the proper cultivation of his lands.

Lastly, defendants say that that the evidence on record do

the existence of the servitude in the lands of the defendan

the lands of the plaintiff landowner for the maintenance of

and dam in question.

ISSUE:Whether or not there was a valid servitude between the pa


2/27

HELD:

Save for the issue on the existence of the servitude, all other allegations

of defendants were outrightly disregarded as they were clearly

unmeritorious in light of the findings of fact. However, the Court ruled that

there was a valid easement in light of the fact that the aqueduct and the

dam had been in existence for more than 30 years, during which time the

plaintif had exercised its use. It was alleged that no benefit was granted

to the plaintiff since his (plaintiff's) land is situated higher than defendants'

land. Moreover, even if defendants had the right to open the gates of the

dam to prevent destructive overflow upon their land, this does not give

them the right to stop the flow of water altogether.


3/27

SOLID MANILA CORP. VS. BIO HONG TRADINGCO.- EASEMENT AND SERVITUDES

Servitudes are merely accessories to the tenement of which they form

part, and even if they are possessed of a separate juridical existence,

they cannot be alienated from the tenement or mortgaged separately.

Note: In a personal servitude, there is no "owner of a dominant tenement"

to speak of, and the easement pertains to persons without a dominant

estate, in this case, the public at large. (Merger, which presupposes

ownership, is not possible.)

FACTS:

Solid Manila Corp. is the owner of a parcel of land located in Ermita. The

same lies in the vicinity of another parcel registered under Bio Hong

Trading whose title came from a prior owner. In the deed of sale between

Bio Hong and the vendor, 900 sqm of the lot was reserved as an

easement of way.

The construction of the private alley was annotated on Bio Hongs title

stating among other things "(6) That the alley shall remain open at all

times, and no obstructions whatsoever shall be placed the

that the owner of the lot on which the alley has been const

allow the public to use the same, and allow the City to lay

and drainage purposes, and shall not act (sic) for any inde

use thereof

The petitioner claims that ever since, it (along with other re

neighboring estates) made use of the above private alley a

and contributed to its upkeep, until sometime in 1983, whe

protests, the private respondent constructed steel gates th

unhampered use.

On December 6, 1984, the petitioner commenced suit for iagainst the private respondent, to have the gates removed

full access to the easement.

The trial court ordered Bi Hong to open the gates but the la

that the easement has been extinguished by merger in the

of the dominant and servient estates upon the purchase of

from its former owner.


4/27

CA reversed holding that an easement is a mere limitation on ownership

and that it does not impair the private respondent's title, and that since

the private respondent had acquired title to the property, "merger"

brought about an extinguishment of the easement.

Thus, Solid went to the SC alleging that the very deed of sale executed

between the Bio Hong and the previous owner of the property "excluded"

the alley in question, and that in any event, the intent of the parties was to

retain the "alley" as an easement notwithstanding the sale.

[While the case was pending, Bio Hong asked the RTC to cancel the

annotation in question, which it granted subject to the final outcome of the

prior case.]

ISSUE:

1) Whether or not easements may be alienated (sold) from the tenementor mortgaged separately

2) Whether or not the easement had been extinguished by merger.

HELD: NO to both

1) The sale included the alley. The court rejected Solids c

the alley was not included in the sale. It was included but t

limitation on its use-the easement. As a mere right of way,

separated from the tenement and maintain an independen

(Art. 617)

Even though Bio Hong acquired ownership over the prope

the disputed alley as a result of the conveyance, it did n

right to close that alley or otherwise put up obstructions th

prevent the public from using it, because as a servitude, th

supposed to be open to the public.

2) No genuine merger took place as a consequence of the

the private respondent corporation. According to the Civil C

exists when ownership of the dominant and servient estate

consolidated in the same person. Merger requires full own

estates.Note that The servitude in question is a personal servitude

for the benefit of a community, or of one or more persons t


5/27

encumbered estate does not belong). In a personal servitude, there is

therefore no "owner of a dominant tenement" to speak of, and the

easement pertains to persons without a dominant estate, in this case, the

public at large. Thus, merger could not have been possible.


6/27

CID VS. JAVIER- NOTARIAL PROHIBITION

Notarial prohibition is required to start the running of prescription. Also

Registration of the Immovable without the registration of the easement

extinguishes the easement.

FACTS:

The easement in dispute here is an easement of light and view, which is

a negative easement. The respondents Javier, et al are the owners of the

building standing on their lot with windows overlooking the adjacent lot.

Respondents have claimed that they had acquired by prescription anenforceable easement of light and view arising from a verbal prohibition

to obstruct such view and light. The lower courts have ruled in their favor.

Note: easement of light and view is continuous and apparent so it is

subject to prescription.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the respondents Irene P. Javier, et al., own

building standing on their lot with windows overlooking the

had acquired by prescription an enforceable easement of

arising from a verbal prohibition to obstruct such view and

have been made upon petitioners predecessor-in-interest

the adjoining lot, both of which lots being covered by Torre

RULING: NO.

Art538s requirement is a formal act and not just any verb

act. Formal act contemplated in art538 in the OLD Civil C

an instrument acknowledged before a notary public. Prescnegative easement only begins when there is a notarial pr

dominant estate. Respondents could have not acquired th

prescription because they have not fulfilled this requireme

assuming they have acquired it, the easement no longer e

the properties were registered under the Torrens system w

annotation or registration of the said easement.


7/27

CORTES VS. YU-TIBO- NEGATIVE EASEMENT

A Notarial prohibition is required to start the running of prescription in a

negative easement.

FACTS:

Easement disputed here is the easement of light and view. Plaintiffs wife

has certain windows on her property which open on the adjacent lot. It

has been established that the plaintiffs hasnt done any formal act

prohibiting the owner of the house of the adjacent house prohibiting them

to make any improvements. Plaintiff claims that period of prescriptionstarted when those windows were made and acknowledge by the owner

of the adjacent lot. Defendant however claims that there should be a

formal act prohibiting them from doing a certain act to trigger the

prescriptive period.

ISSUE:

Whether or not plaintiffs have acquired the easement thro

prescription?

RULING: NO.

The Court clarified that mere act of opening one owns win

of dominion not of easement. The easement here is the (p

prohibition of creating any improvements on the property o

defendants (negative easement) that may impede or limit t

window. Thus, plaintiff is totally wrong in saying that presc

easement starts to kick in when the window was made and

by the adjacent owner. In fact, what is needed in this situa

act through a notarial prohibition so that prescriptive period

fact that the defendant has not covered the windows of the

plaintiff does not necessarily imply the recognition of the a

prescription of the alleged easement as this might just be

mere tolerance on the part of the defendant.

Plaintiffs asked for a rehearing but was again denied! Plain


8/27

about their windows and watersheds to be apparent easements, or just

projitiendi and jus spillitiendi. The court says that the plaintiffs are

obviously confused between the right exercised by owners and the rights

provided in easements.


9/27

ABELLANA VS. CA- EASEMENTS OF RIGHT OFWAY

Easements of right of way may not be acquired by prescription because it

is not a continuous easement.

FACTS:

Petitioners are owners of a parcel of land on the NW side of Nonoc

Subdivision, Cebu. They sued to establish an easement of a right of way

over a subdivision road, which they claim theyve acquired through

prescription since their ancestors have been using these since timeimmemorial.

They pray that the concrete wall surrounding the village be taken down to

allow easy access to the public highway.

RTC found for the petitioners. CA reversed, averring that road lots insubdivisions are private property and may only be used as a public

highway once acquired by the government through donatio

expropriation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the easement of a right of way may be acq

prescription?

HELD:

No. Art. 620 of the Civil Code provides that only continuou

easements may be acquired by prescription. The easemenway cannot be considered continuous because its use is a

is dependent on the acts of man.


10/27

RONQUILLO VS. ROCO- EASEMENT OF RIGHT OFWAY

Easements of right of way may not be acquired by prescription because it

is not a continuous easement.

FACTS:

Petitioners parcel of land was connected to the Naga Market Place and

Igualdad St. by an easement of a right of way through the land of the

Respondents, which they have been using for more than 20 years. On

May 1953, however, respondents built a chapel right in the middle of the

road, blocking their usual path to the marketplace. One year after, by

means of force, intimidation, and threats, the owners (respondents) of the

land where the easement was situated, planted wooden posts and fenced

with barbed wires the road, closing their right of way from their house to

Igualdad St. and Naga public market.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the easement of a right of way may be acq

prescription?

HELD: No.

Art. 620 of the CC provides that only continuous and appa

may be acquired by prescription. The easement of a right

be considered continuous because its use is at intervals a

dependent on the acts of man.

Minority Opinion (including the ponente):

Easements of right of way may already be acquired by preleast since the introduction into this jurisdiction of the spec

prescription through the Old Code of Civil Procedure, Act N

law, particularly, Section 41 thereof, makes no distinction a

rights which are subject to prescription, and there would a

valid reason, at least to the writer of this opinion, why the c

of a path or a road or right of way by the party, specially by

ten years or more, not by mere tolerance of the owner of t


11/27

through adverse use of it, cannot give said party a vested right to such

right of way through prescription.

The uninterrupted and continuous enjoyment of a right of way necessary

to constitute adverse possession does not require the use thereof every

day for the statutory period, but simply the exercise of the right more or

less frequently according to the nature of the use. (17 Am. Jur. 972)

"It is submitted that under Act No. 190, even discontinuous servitudes

can be acquired by prescription, provided it can be shown that the

servitude was actual, open, public, continuous, under a claim of title

exclusive of any other right and adverse to all other claimants'."


12/27

AMOR V. FLORENTINO- EASEMENT

FACTS:

Maria Florentino owned a house and a camarin (warehouse). By a will,

she transferred the house to Jose Florentino and the warehouse to Maria

Florentino. Maria sold the warehouse to Amor. Amor then demolished the

old warehouse in order to build a new 2-storey structure. The problem is it

will shut off the light and air that come in through the window of the

adjacent house owned by Jose. Hence the latter files for prohibition

claiming there is a negative easement prohibiting Amor from constructing

any structure at any height that would block the window. Amor counters

that there is no easement. Moreover, since the death of testator was

before the Civil Code took effect, the rules on easement do not apply.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not there is an easement prohibiting Amor from doing said

construction.2. Whether or not the Civil Code may be applied

RULING:

1. Yes. Easement are established by law or by will of the o

title. Under Art. 624, there is title by the doctrine of appare

the estate is subsequently owned by two different personsservice (it cannot be an easement before the transfer) is

the title nor removed, an easement is established.

The Cortez case cannot be invoked by Amor because it in

acquisition by prescription. Art. 624 is acquisition by title.

2. Amor failed to prove that the death of the testator occur

effectivity of the Old Civil Code. The facts show that it hap

effectivity of the said code so the law on easement is alrea

In any case, even if we assume Amors supposition, the la

was already integrated into the Spanish Law and in fact, h

established by Jurisprudence.

Therefore, Amor is prohibitied from constructing the wareh

level of the window.


13/27

DISSENTING OPINION OF OZAETA.

1) The Majority opinio committed a travesty on justice when it ignored the

evidence produced by Amor that the testators death occurred before the

effectivity of the Code.

2) Hence, the law on easement will not apply. Moreover, the Spanish Law

and the Partidas provided for only three ways of acquiring easements: 1)

contract 2) testament 3) prescription. There was no provision similar to

the doctrine of apparent sign.

3) There is no doctrine established by the Spanish Tribunal regarding the

doctrine.

4) In this modern age of flourescent lights and air conditioning devices,

the easement of light and view would be obsolete and deterrent to

economic progress especially when in the cities, buildings are side to side

with each other.


14/27

AMOR V FLORENTINO

SYLLABUS

1. EASEMENTS; LIGHT AND VIEW AND "ALTIUS NON TOLLENDI";

REQUIREMENT UPON THE OWNER OF SERVIENT ESTATE; NEGATIVE AND

POSITIVE EASEMENTS. The easement of light and view and easement not to

build higher (altius non tollendi) go together because an easement of light and

view requires that the owner of the servient estate shall not build to a height

that will obstruct the window. They are, as it were, the two sides of the same

coin. While an easement of light and view is positive, that of altius non tollendi

negative.

2. ID.; MODES OF ESTABLISHING AND ACQUIRING EASEMENTS. According

to article 536, Civil Code, easements are established by law or by will of the

owners. Acquisition of easements is first by title or its equivalent and secondly

by prescription.

3. ID.; WHAT CHARACTERIZES ITS EXISTENCE. Under article 541 of the Civil

Code, the visible and permanent sign of an easement is the title that

characterizes its existence.

4. ID.; WHEN AN EASEMENT IS DEEMED CREATED; NOBODY C

EASEMENT OVER HIS OWN PROPERTY. The easement is no

division of the property, inasmuch as a predial or real easemen

rights in another's property, or jura in re aliena and nobody can

easement over his own property, nemini sua res servit.

5. ID.; REQUISITE OF EASEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 530 OF CIV

requisite of an easement as required by article 530 of the Civil C

there must be two proprietors one, of the dominant estate an

servient estate.

6. ID.; THE PRESENT CASE AND THAT OF CORTES vs. YU-TIB

DISTINGUISHED. The present case is distinguished from tha

Cortes vs. Yu-Tibo (2 Phil., 29), that in the latter it involved acqu

easement by prescription, while in the present case the questio

acquisition of easement by title, or its equivalent, under article

Code. While a formal prohibition was necessary in the former c

start the period of prescription, no such act is necessary in the

because of the existence of the apparent sign which is a suffici

to create the easement.

7. ID.; EASEMENT ENJOYED BY FORMER OWNER SUBSISTS A

OF ESTATE IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRACT TO THE CONTRA

estate is divided between different persons, and in the contract


15/27

about a mode of enjoyment different from that used by the original owner

thereof, the necessary easements for said mode of enjoyment are understood

to be subsisting.

8. ID.; LAW OF EASEMENT PRIOR TO CIVIL CODE IS THE SAME AS IN THE

LATTER. The same principle enunciated in article 541 of the Spanish Civil

Code was already an integral part of the Spanish law before the promulgation of

the Civil Code in 1889, and, therefore, even if the case should be governed by

the Spanish law prior to the Civil Code, the easement in question would also

have to be upheld.

9. ID.; PRESCRIPTIVE LAWS OF EASEMENT BEFORE AND AFTER THE CIVIL

CODE. The prescriptive period under the Partidas was 10 years between

persons who were present, and 20 years between absentees. (4 Manresa, 605.)

According to article 537 of the Civil Code, continuous and apparent easements

may be acquired by prescription for 20 years. Under sections 40 and 41 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, the period is 10 years.

10. ID.; RIGHTS OF PURCHASERS OF LAND BURDENED WITH APPARENT

EASEMENTS. Purchasers of lands burdened with apparent easements do not

enjoy the rights of third persons who acquire property, though the burden is

not recorded.

11. ID.; EASEMENTS EXIST SIDE BY SIDE WITH OWNERSHIP.

unlimited dominion is unthinkable because it would destroy an

inasmuch as proper enjoyment or property requires mutual ser

forbearance among the adjoining estates. It is thus that easeme

created by law or established by will of the parties, must perfor

side with ownership.

FACTS: It appears that over 50 years ago, Maria Florentino own

a camarin or warehouse in Vigan, Ilocos Sur. The house had an

the north side, three windows on the upper story, and a fourth o

ground floor. Through these windows the house receives light

lot where the camarin stands. On September 6, 1885, Maria Flor

will, devising the house and the land on which it is situated to G

Florentino, one of the respondents herein, and to Jose Florentiother respondents. In said will, the testatrix also devised the wa

lot where it is situated to Maria Encarnacion Florentino. Upon t

testatrix in 1892, nothing was said or done by the devisees in re

windows in question. On July 14, 1911, Maria Encarnacion Flor

lot and the warehouse thereon to the petitioner, Severo Amor, t

stating that the vendor had inherited the property from her aun

Florentino. In January, 1938, petitioner destroyed the old wareh

started to build instead a two-story house. On March 1st of that

respondents filed an action to prohibit petitioner herein from bu

than the original structure and from executing any work which


16/27

the light and air that had for many years been received through the four

windows referred to. The Court of First Instance found on the 15th of the same

month that the construction of the new house had almost been completed, so

the court denied the writ of preliminary injunction.

"Art. 541. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates,

established by the proprietor of both, shall be considered, if one of them is

alienated, as a title so that the easement will continue actively and passively,

unless at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary is

stated in the deed of alienation of either of them, or the sign is made to

disappear before the instrument is executed."

ISSUE/HELD: whether or not Article 541 applies to a division of property by

succession. AFFIRMATIVE. there is an implied contract between them that theeasements in question should be constituted.

RATIO DICIDENDI:

These two easements necessarily go together because an easement of light

and view requires that the owner of the servient estate shall not build to a

height that will obstruct the window. They are, as it were, the two sides of the

same coin. While an easement of light and view is positive, that of altius non

tollendi is negative. Clemente de Diego states that when article 538 speaks of

the time for the commencement of prescription for negative eas

refers to those negative easements which are the result and co

others that are positive, such as the easement not to build high

construct, which is indispensable to the easement of light."

It will thus be seen that under article 541 the existence of the ap

the instant case, to wit, the four windows under consideration,

purposes the same character and effect as a title of acquisition

of light and view by the respondents upon the death of the orig

Florentino. Upon the establishment of that easement of light an

concomitant and concurrent easement of altius non tollendi wa

constituted, the heir of the camarin and its lot, Maria Encarnaci

not having objected to the existence of the windows. The theorof making the existence of the apparent sign equivalent to a titl

to the contrary is said or done by the two owners, is sound and

because as it happens in this case, there is an implied contract

that the easements in question should be constituted.

If we do not apply article 541 of the Civil Code and we canno

because Maria Florentino died in 1885 there is really a gap in

respondents, but none in the case for the petitioner. 1 Under th

rather in the absence of an express provision therein similar to

petitioner should win; and since the parties litigant herein are e


17/27

their case decided in accordance with the pre-Civil Code legislation in force in

the Philippines as provided in the transitory provisions, since that legislation

without any "gap-filling" is in favor of the petitioner, and since to "fill the gap"

would prejudice him and unduly favor the respondents, the Court should

abstain from so doing as a matter of law and justice.

First, as to the modes of establishing and acquiring easements. According to

Article 536, easements are established by law or by will of the owners.

Acquisition of easements is first by title or its equivalent and secondly by

prescription. What acts take the place of title? They are mentioned in Articles

540 and 541, namely, (1) a deed of recognition by the owner of the servient

estate; (2) a final judgment; and (3) an apparent sign between two estates,

established by the owner of both, which is the case of article 541. Sanchez

Roman calls such apparent sign under article 541 "supletoria del tituloconstitutivo de la servidumbre."

standpoint of justice and public policy

When Maria Encarnacion Florentino, as one of of the devisees, accepted the

camarin and the lot, she could not in fairness receive the benefit without

assuming the burden of the legacy. That burden consisted of the service in fact

during the lifetime of the original owner, which service became a true easement

upon her death.

It is not just to allow Maria Encarnacion Florentino or her succe

to repudiate her own undertaking, implied, it is true, but binding

This easement is therefore a burden which Maria Encarnacion

her successor in interest willingly accepted. They cannot now m

any inconvenience consequent upon their own agreement.

During the construction of the new house by the petitioner, the

filed an action to stop the work. But petitioner continued the co

that when the Court of First Instance was ready to pass upon th

injunction, the work had almost been finished. Petitioner, there

complain if he is now ordered to tear down part of the new stru

to shut off the light from respondents' windows.

When petitioner bought this lot from the original coheir, Maria EFlorentino, the windows on respondents' house were visible. It

duty to inquire into the significance of those windows. Having f

he cannot now question the easement against the property whi

purchased.

VI

Recapitulating, we believe the easement of light and view has b

in favor of the property of respondents, for these reasons:


18/27

1. Maria Florentino having died in 1892, according to a finding of fact of the

Court of Appeals, which we cannot review, Article 541 of the Civil Code is

applicable to this case.

2. Granting, arguendo, that Maria Florentino died in 1885, nevertheless the

same principle embodied in article 541 of the Civil Code was already an integral

part of the Spanish law before the promulgation of the Civil Code in 1889, and

therefore, even if the instant case should be governed by the Spanish law prior

to the Civil Code, the easement in question would also have to be upheld.

3. The easement under review has been acquired by respondents through

prescription.

4. The petitioner was not an innocent purchaser, as he was in duty bound toinquire into the significance of the windows.

5. Justice and public policy are on the side of the respondents.

- See more at: http://studentsofsocrates.blogspot.com/2010/10/amor-v-

florentino.html#sthash.NM3xEGvb.dpuf


19/27

GARGANTOS V. CA- EASEMENT

FACTS:

Sanz was the previous owner of a land which he subdivided into several

lots. One lot was sold to Tengtio, whol sold to Uy Veza. Another lot with a

house constituted thereon was sold to Tan Yanon(PR). A third portion

with a warehouse was sold to Gargantos. The problem arose when latter

asked from the Municipality for a permit to demolish the warehouse in

order to construct a higher one. Yan Yung opposed for it would block his

window and impair his right of loght and view.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an easement was established

RULING:

Yes. Again, Art. 624 provides that when two adjoining estates wereformerly owned by one person who introduced improvements on both

such that the wall of the house contructed on the first estat

the wall of the warehouse on the second estate; and at the

sale of the first estate, there existed on the aforementione

house, doors, windows which serve as passages for light a

being no provision in the deed of sale that the easement o

will not be established, the apparent sign of easement betw

estates is established as a title.


20/27

VALDERRAMA V. THE NORTH NEGROS SUGARCO., INC.- EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY

What is prohibited by Art. 543 is that in extending the line or repairing or

using the same, a larger area of land is occupied or excavations or

materials deposited are outside the area occupied not by causing wagons

to pass just because of a change of ownership of the objects being

transported.

FACTS:

Several hacienda owners in Manapla, Occidental Negros, entered into a

milling contract with Miguel Osorio wherein the latter would build a sugar

central of a minimum capacity of 300 tons for the milling and grinding of

all the sugar cane to be grown by the hacienda owners who in turn would

furnish the central with all the cane they might produce in their estates for

30 years from the execution of the contract. Later on, Osorios rights and

interests were acquired by the North Negros Sugar Co., Inc.

2 years after, the current petitioners, Catalino Valderrama, EmilioRodriguez, Santos Urra et. al, made other milling contracts identical to

the first one with the North Negros Sugar, Co., Inc. The ha

however, could not furnish the central sufficient cane for m

required by its capacity, so the North Negros made other m

with the various hacienda owners of Cadiz, Occidental Ne

prompted Valderrama et. al to each file a complaint agains

The CFI entered 1 single judgment for all of them, ruling in

als favor finding that North Negros had no right to pass th

of the hacienda owners for the transportation of sugar can

from their lands. Thus the appeal to the SC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the easement of way established was rest

transporting only sugar cane from the hacienda owners la

HELD: NO

(the SC also made 1 judgment for all the 3 cases)

The contract entered into by each of the hacienda owners


21/27

clause that granted the North Negros an easement of way 7 meters wide

for the period of 50 years upon their properties for the construction of a

railroad. The owners allege ambiguity since it could permit the

transportation of sugar cane which they did not produce which is contrary

to their intent but the SC held that it is clear that the easement was

established for the benefit of all producers and of the corporation as it is

the intent of the milling contract.

Since the easement is a voluntary, apparent, continuous easement of

way in favor of the corporation, it is contrary to the nature of the contract

that it is only limited to canes produced by the servient estates since it is

a well settled rule that things serve their owner by reason of ownership

and not by reason of easement. The owners also cannot limit its use for

there is nothing in the contract prohibiting the central from obtaining other

sources.

Transporting cane from Cadiz also does not make it more burdensome

since what is prohibited in Art. 543 of the CC is that in extending the road

or in repairing it, it should occupy a greater area or deposit excavations

outside the granted 7 meters. This does not happen in this case when the

North Negros transports sugar cane from Cadiz, crossing

estates, since it continues to occupy the same area and th

is still the same regardless of the number of times it passe

estates.

Also the period of the easement is longer than the period o

contracts, so even if the owners no longer desire to furnish

canes for milling, the North Negros still has the right to the

the remaining period so the contention that it should be lim

canes produced by the owners has no basis.


22/27

JAVELLANA V. IAC- POSITIVE EASEMENT

When a positive easement is constituted, the servient owner is prevented

from impairing the use of such by the dominant estate.

FACTS:

Marsal & Co., Inc., and Marcelino Florete, Sr. is the present owner of the

land adjoining the Iloilo River up to the adjacent lot where the L. Borres

Elem. School is located. There existed a main canal from the Iloilo River

which passes through the Marsal property and thru a canal that traverses

the school property going towards Lot 2344. Marsal & Co. closed the dikeentrance and later on demolished the portions of the main dike

connecting the main canal to the canal running thru the school grounds.

This closure caused flooding in the premises of the school and its vicinity

because the canal serves as outlet of rain or flood water that empties into

the river. This prompted the school and barangay officials to complain to

higher authorities about the closure of the canal. When Florete was about

to bury a pipe in lieu of an open canal, he was prevented from doing soby the district supervisor, Javellana, thus he instituted a complaint for

recovery of damages for allegedly denying his access to th

canal to his property.

The RTC ruled in favor of Javellana thus Florete appealed

which reversed the decision thus the case at bar.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an easement was established in favor of th

property

RULING: YES

A positive easement of water-right-of-way was constituted

of Florete as the servient estate in favor of the L. Borres E

School and the nearby lands as dominant estates since it

continuous use for no less than 15 years by the school fish

as by the nearby adjacent lands.

As a positive easement, Florete had no right to terminate t


23/27

canal without violating Art. 629 of the CC which provides that The owner

of the servient estate cannot impair, in any manner whatsoever, the use

of the servitude. Nevertheless if by reason of the place originally assigned

or of the manner established for the use of the easement, the same

should become very inconvenient to the owner of the servient estate, or

should prevent him from making any important works, repairs orimprovements thereon, it may be charged at his expense, provided he

offers another place or manner equally convenient and in such a way that

no injury is caused thereby to the owner of the dominant estate or to

those who may have a right to the use of the easement.

When Florete closed the entrance of the canal and demolished portions

of the main dike it impaired the use of the servitude by the dominant

estates.

Additional Facts:

> One witness almost drowned

> One witness saved a woman, who while picking shells fell into the canal

> 2 witnesses took a bath in the canal, 1 when he was still a child, the

other when he was still single

> Canal is used by residents for salt-making using plastic b

in competition with Marsal & Co. in the production of salt

> the canal is a source of salt water, it is fresh and clean s

changes from the Iloilo River while the fishpond is stagnan

> before the closure of the dikes, there were no floods in th

> tube to be buried: 10-inch rubber tube> canal:

o for the 1st 100 meters = 3 meters wide

o 200 meters = 2 meters

> depth of canal:

o high tide or rainy season = main canal = meter; ca

traverses school = 2 meters

o ordinary days = no water

> Florete only caused the canal to be deeper


24/27

BENEDICTO V. CA

25 SCRA 145

FACTS:Hendrick was the owner of a property which half of it was sold to Recto.An easement of way was annotated in the certificates of title.

Subsequently, the remaining half of the property was sold to Herras whothen closed and walled the part of land serving as easement of way.

HELD:The easement is perpetual in character and was annotated in all thecertificates of title. Absence of anything that would show mutualagreement to extinguish the easement, the easement persists.


25/27

TAEDO V BERNAD- EXTINGUISHMENT OFEASEMENT

An easement continues by operation of law. Alienation of the D and S

estates to different persons is not a ground for extinguishment of

easements absent a statement extinguishing it.

FACTS:

Antonio Cardenas (resp) is the original owner of 2 parcels of land (7501-A

and 7501-B). He constructed an apartment bldg in Lot A and in Lot B he

constructed an apartment, house, bodega and a septic tank for common

use of the occupants of the two lots.

Cardenas sold Lot A and mortgaged Lot B to Eduardo Taedo (pet). He

also agreed that should be decide to sell Lot B he would sell it to Taedo.

However, Cardenas sold Lot B to Spouses Sim (resp). Sim blocked the

sewage pipe connecting the building on Lot A to the septic tank. He also

asked Tanedo to remove that portion of his building encroaching Lot B.

Taedo filed an action for legal redemption and damages

Cardenas admitted that he had agreed to sell the lot to pet

by way of cross claim against spouses Sim that the Deed

executed was only intended as an equitable mortgage. RT

the complaint and the cross claim.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the right to continue to use the septic tank

the subdivision of the land and its subsequent sale to diffe

RULING: NO.

The alienation of the dominant and servient estates to diffe

not one of the grounds for the extinguishment of an easem

contrary, use of the easement is continued by operation of

provided in Art 624 because no abolishment or extinguishm

provided in the deed of absolute sale. Nor did Cardenas st


26/27

the drain pipe and septic tanks before he sold the lots. Accordingly, the

spouses Sim cannot impair, in any manner, the use of the servitude.


27/27

ALCANTARA V. RITA

372 SCRA 364

FACTS:Petitioners filed a case for alleged violations of their right of first refusalunder PD1517, claiming to be urban lessees or tenants. The complaint

was dismissed from the finding that they are not lessees.

HELD:Where a person is allowed to construct his house on the land of anotherto facilitate gathering of fruits, this would be in the nature of a personaleasement.

property week 11

Documents