Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
1. RELOVA v. LAVAREZ
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.
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 thereon; and (7) that the owner
of the lot on which the alley has been constructed shall allow
the public to use the same, and allow the City to lay pipes for
sewer and drainage purposes, and shall not act (sic) for any
indemnity for the use thereof
The trial court ordered Bi Hong to open the gates but the
latter argued that the easement has been extinguished by
merger in the same person of the dominant and servient
estates upon the purchase of the property from its former
owner.
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.
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
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
HELD: NO to both
1) The sale included the alley. The court rejected Solids
contention that the alley was not included in the sale. It was
included but there was a limitation on its use-the easement.
As a mere right of way, it cannot be separated from the
tenement and maintain an independent existence. (Art. 617)
4. CORTES v YU-TIBO
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 prescription
started 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.
3. CID v JAVIER
Notarial prohibition is required to start the running of
prescription. Also Registration of the Immovable without the
registration of the easement extinguishes the easement.
(Very limited facts in the original case)
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 an
enforceable 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.
RULING: NO.
Art538s requirement is a formal act and not just any
verbal or written act. Formal act contemplated in art538 in
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
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 time immemorial.
7. AMOR v. FLORENTINO
ISSUE: Whether or not the easement of a right of way may be
acquired by prescription?
HELD: No. Art. 620 of the CC provides that only continuous
and apparent easements may be acquired by prescription.
The easement of a right of way cannot be considered
continuous because its use is at intervals and is dependent on
the acts of man.
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.
6. RONQUILLO v ROCO
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:
W/N there is an easement prohibiting Amor from doing said
construction.
W/N the Civil Code may be applied
RULING:
1. Yes. Easement are established by law or by will of the
owners or by title. Under Art. 624, there is title by the
doctrine of apparent sign. When the estate is subsequently
owned by two different persons and the service (it cannot
be an easement before the transfer) is not revoked in the
title nor removed, an easement is established.
the
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
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.
8. GARGANTOS V. CA
FACTS:
(similar facts above) 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. 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.
HELD: NO
(the SC also made 1 judgment for all the 3 cases)
The contract entered into by each of the hacienda owners
contained a 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.
ISSUE:
W/N an easement was established
RULING:
Yes. Again, Art. 624 provides that when two adjoining estates
were formerly owned by one person who introduced
improvements on both such that the wall of the house
contructed on the first estate extends to the wall of the
warehouse on the second estate; and at the time of the sale
of the first estate, there existed on the aforementioned wall
of the house, doors, windows which serve as passages for
light and view, there being no provision in the deed of sale
that the easement of light and view will not be established,
the apparent sign of easement between the two estates is
established as a title.
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
4
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
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; canal that traverses school = 2
meters
o ordinary days = no water
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 dike entrance 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 so by the district
supervisor, Javellana, thus he instituted a complaint for
recovery of damages for allegedly denying his access to the
use of the canal to his property.
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.
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
legitimate tenant of the land for ten (10) years or more; (2)
must have built his home on the land by contract; and, (3)
has resided continuously for the last ten (10) years.
Obviously, those who do not fall within the said category
cannot be considered "legitimate tenants" and, therefore, not
entitled to the right of first refusal to purchase the property
should the owner of the land decide to sell the same at a
reasonable price within a reasonable time.
RULING: NO.
The alienation of the dominant and servient estates to
different persons is not one of the grounds for the
extinguishment of an easement. On the contrary, use of the
easement is continued by operation of law as provided in Art
624 because no abolishment or extinguishment was provided
in the deed of absolute sale. Nor did Cardenas stop the use of
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.
FACTS:
Edilberto Alcantara et. al. filed with the RTC, Davao City a
complaint against Cornelio B. Reta, Jr. for the exercise of the
right of first refusal under Presidential Decree No. 1517,
injunction with preliminary injunction, attorney's fees and
nullity of amicable settlement.