VALDERRAMA V. THE NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO., 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, Emilio Rodriguez,
Santos Urra et. al, made other milling contracts identical to the first one with
the North Negros Sugar, Co., Inc. The hacienda owners, however, could not furnish
the central sufficient cane for milling as required by its capacity, so the North
Negros made other milling contracts with the various hacienda owners of Cadiz,
Occidental Negros. This prompted Valderrama et. al to each file a complaint against
North Negros.

The CFI entered 1 single judgment for all of them, ruling in Valderrama et. als
favor finding that North Negros had no right to pass through the lands of the
hacienda owners for the transportation of sugar cane not grown from their lands.
Thus the appeal to the SC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the easement of way established was restricted to transporting only
sugar cane from the hacienda owners lands

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.

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 the servient estates, since it continues to occupy the
same area and the encumbrance is still the same regardless of the number of times
it passes through the estates.

Also the period of the easement is longer than the period of the milling contracts,
so even if the owners no longer desire to furnish the central canes for milling,
the North Negros still has the right to the easement for the remaining period so
the contention that it should be limited to the canes produced by the owners has no
basis.