Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
1. VILLANUEVA V VELASCO
A legal easement is one mandated by law, constituted for
public use or for private interest and becomes a continuing
property right unless its removal is provided for in a title of
conveyance or the sign of the easement is removed before
the execution of the conveyance; Essential requisites for an
easement to be compulsory are: (1) the dominant estate is
surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet
to a public highway; (2) proper indemnity has been paid; (3)
the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the
dominant estate; (4) the right of way claimed is at point least
prejudicial to the servient estate; and (5) to the extent
consistent with the foregoing rule, where the distance from
the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate
to a public highway may be the shortest. The burden of
proving the existence of these prerequisites lies on the owner
of the dominant estate.
3. CRISTOBAL V CA
Petitioners cannon insist upon an easement out of mere
convenience. It must be proven that without an easement,
access to the dominant property is impossible
FACTS
Petitioner Cristobal owned a house and lot along Visayas Ave.
For mere convenience, he used an access path called Road
Lot 2 to reach the nearest public highway.
4. FLORO v. LLENADO
A legal easement cannot arise merely for the
convenience of the dominant estate. The owner must
prove that the easement is absolutely necessary and least
restrictive on the servient estate.
FACTS:
Mr Floro owned the Floro Park Subdivision situated in
Bulacan. The subdivision has its own access roads from the
MacArthur Highway through road lot 4.
The intrusion did not sit well with Pacione. Pacione begun
talks with Cristobal but negotiations stalled miserably. To
protect his rights, Pacione began fencing his lot. Cristobal
objected, stating he had no other means of entry and exit to
the national road.
The RTC adjudicated and through the Sheriff, found that two
other outlets existed to allow Cristobal access to his lot even
without the creation of Easment on the Pacione property.
This negated the claims of Cristobal so the RTC denied the
motion for an easement.
The case reached the CA which likewise affirmed the RTC and
vexed Cristobal. The case reached the SC
ISSUE: w/n the requisites for legal easement were present to
support Cristobals request for the creation of a road through
Paciones property.
Because the access road through the Ipapo Riceland did not
exist yet, the Llenados sought, and were granted, oral
permission by the Floros to use Road Lots 4 and 5 of the Floro
Park . At this point, remember that the agreement was
merely provisional as the parties were still drafting a
contract.
HELD: NO.
The requisites are not present. Easment cannot be insisted
upon.
To be entitled to a compulsory easement of right of way, the
preconditions provided under Arts. 649 and 650 of the Civil
Code must be established. These include:
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
and ordered that Mr. Floro remove the barricades. Mr. Floro
went to the SC
ISSUE:
W/n the requirements for legal easement existed to allow
Llenado to claim the same against Mr. Floro.
HELD: NO.
As in the earlier case, the court held that
to be entitled to a compulsory easement of right of way, the
preconditions provided under Arts. 649 and 650 of the Civil
Code must be established. These include:
that the dominant estate is surrounded by other
immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public
highway; (2) that proper indemnity has been paid; (3)
that the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor
of the dominant estate; (4) that the right of way
claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient
estate and, in so far as consistent with this rule, where
the distance from the dominant estate to a public
highway may be the shortest.
For this case, it is apparent that the elements have not been
met.
The court ruled time and again that one may not claim a legal
easement merely out of convenience. Convenience motivated
Llenando to abandon the Ipapo access road development and
pursue an access road through the Floro estate. He was
stacking the cards in his favor to the unnecessary detriment
of his neighbor. The court refused to countenance his
behavior.
5. FRANCISCO V. IAC
An owner cannot, as respondent has done, by his own act
isolate his property from a public highway and then claim
an easement of way through an adjacent estate. Isolation
must not be due to his own acts.
FACTS:
Ramos' Lot 860-A used to be a part of Lot 860 of the Malinta
Estate owned by several co-owners.
6. QUIMEN V. CA
LEAST DAMAGE > SHORTEST DISTANCE
When the easement may be established on any of several
tenements surrounding the dominant estate, the one where
the way is shortest and will cause the least damage should
be chosen. However, as elsewhere stated, if these two (2)
circumstances do not concur in a single tenement, the way
which will cause the least damage should be used, even if it
will not be the shortest.
FACTS
Anastacia Quimen, together with her 3 brothers and sister,
inherited a piece of property in Bulacan. They agreed to
subdivide the property equally among themselves. The shares
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
ISSUE:
1)
2)
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
TCs findings:
RTC and CA both found for Fajardo and granted the easement
of right of way. On appeal, the Sta. Maria's allege that
Fajardo failed to prove that it was not their own actions
which caused their lot to be enclosed or cut-off from the
road.
CAs finding:
FACTS:
Plaintiff spouses Arsenio and Roslynn Fajardo are the
registered owners of a piece of land, Lot No. 124, in Bulacan.
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
FACTS:
A free patent over three (3) hectares of land, situated in the
province of Cagayan was issued in the name of Vicente
Manglapus, and registered under OCT No. P-24814. The land
was granted subject to the following proviso expressly stated
in the title:
"... it shall not be subject to any encumbrance
whatsoever in favor of any corporation, association or
partnership except with the consent of the grantee and
the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources and solely for educational, religious or
charitable purposes or for a right of way; and subject
finally to all conditions and public easements and
servitudes recognized and prescribed by law especially
those mentioned in sections 109, 110, 111, 112, 113 and
114 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended..."
HELD:
No. The petitioner's position is not impressed with merit. We
find no reason to disturb the appellate court's finding of fact
that the petitioner failed to prove the non-existence of an
adequate outlet to the Sucat Road except through the
Gatchalian Avenue. As borne out by the records of the case,
there is a road right of way provided by the Sabrina Rodriguez
Lombos Subdivision indicated as Lot 4133-G-12 in its
subdivision plan for the buyers of its lots. The fact that said
lot is still undeveloped and causes inconvenience to the
petitioner when he uses it to reach the public highway does
not bring him within the ambit of the legal requisite. We
agree with the appellate court's observation that the
petitioner should have, first and foremost, demanded from
the Sabrina Rodriguez Lombos Subdivision the improvement
and maintenance of Lot 4133-G-12 as his road right of way
because it was from said subdivision that he acquired his lot
and not either from the Gatchalian Realty or the respondents
Asprec. To allow the petitioner access to Sucat Road through
Gatchalian Avenue inspite of a road right of way provided by
the petitioner's subdivision for its buyers simply because
Gatchalian Avenue allows petitioner a much greater ease in
going to and coming from the main thoroughfare is to
completely ignore what jurisprudence has consistently
maintained through the years regarding an easement of a
right of way, that "mere convenience for the dominant estate
is not enough to serve as its basis. To justify the imposition of
this servitude, there must be a real, not a fictitious or
artificial, necessity for it."
ISSUE:
W/N the NIA should pay Manglapus just compensation for the
taking of a portion of his property for use as easement of a
right of way.
RULING: No.
The transfer certificate of title contains such a reservation. It
states that title to the land shall be:
". . . subject to the provisions of said Land
Registration Act and the Public Land Act, as well as
those of Mining Laws, if the land is mineral, and
subject, further to such conditions contained in the
original title as may be subsisting."
Under the Original Certificate of Title, there was a
reservation and condition that the land is subject to "to all
conditions and public easements and servitudes recognized
and prescribed by law especially those mentioned in Sections
109, 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114, Commonwealth Act No. 141,
as amended." This reservation, unlike the other
provisos imposed on the grant, was not limited by any time
period and thus is a subsisting condition.
Section 112, Commonwealth Act No. 141, provides that lands
granted by patent,
"shall further be subject to a right of way sot
exceeding twenty meters in width for public
highways, railroads,irrigation ditches, aqueducts,
telegraphs and telephone lines, and similar works..."
6
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
We note that the canal NIA constructed was only eleven (11)
meters in width. This is well within the limit provided by
law. Manglapus has therefore no cause to complain.
ISSUE:
1. W/N an easement has arisen by prescription
2. W/N the pathway has become a public street
RULING:
1) No. Petitioners' assumption that an easement of right of
way is continuous and apparent and may be acquired by
prescription under Article 620 of the Civil Code, is erroneous.
The use of a footpath or road may be apparent but it is not a
continuous easement because its use is at intervals and
depends upon the acts of man. It can be exercised only if a
man passes or puts his feet over somebody else's land. Hence,
a right of way is not acquirable by prescription.
Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|
without adequate outlet to a public highway (2) after
payment of the proper indemnity (3) the isolation is not due
to the propietors own acts and (4) the right of way claimed
is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate and in so
far as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the
dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.