You are on page 1of 6

Valisno vs. Adriano Amor vs. Florentino, et al.

No. L-37409 No. 48384

Facts: Facts:
Valisno bought the parcel of land owned by Adrianos Maria Florentino, owner of a house and a warehouse,
sister Honorata. It was planted with fruits and bequeathed her house and lot to Gabriel and Jose
vegetables and which adjoins Adrianos land on the Florentino, and the warehouse and lot to her niece
bank of the river. Both lands were inherited from Maria Encarnacion Florentino upon his death. IN
defendants and vendees father Eladio. When it was 1911, Maria Encarnacion later sold her inheritance to
sold, the land has irrigation from the Pampanga River Severo Amor. In 1938, he destroyed the old
through a canal 70 meters long traversing Adrianos warehouse to build a two-story house. On the same
land. He now leveled a portion of the canal which year, respondents filed an action to prohibit petitioner
prevented the flow of water and deprived Valisno of from building a higher structure as it would obstruct
cultivating his land. He filed complaint for deprivation the light and air that passes through the four windows
of water rights in the Bureau of Public Works and to the house. Pending the decision of the trial court,
Communications and it ordered Adriano to rebuild the Amor continued building the house. Finding that an
irrigational canal. But this he did not do and instead easement was established but that the construction of
Valisno constructed it by his own money. He also filed the new building was almost complete, the court
for payment of damages against defendant in the trial denied the writ for preliminary injunction. Upon
court. However, the Secretary of Public Works and appeal, the Court of Appeals, upheld the constitution
Communications dismissed the complaint as the of the easement at the time of Marias death which in
water rights granted to Eladio in 1923, which was 1892 and ordered Amor to remove any obstruction
conveyed to Valisno in the sale, ceased in 1936 or from the easement of light and view on the windows
1937 for its non-use. No water right then was and abstain from building the new structure.
transferred to his heirs, and so Valisno did not acquire
such water right. The trial court, invoking the Irrigation Issue: Whether or not an easement was
Law, held that Valisno has no right to pass through constituted on the four windows of the inherited
Adrianos land to draw water from the river, and the property.
decision of the Bureaus Secretary is final unless an
appeal was taken from within 30 days. Held:
The Court held that an easement of light and view
Issue: Whether or not the provisions of the was constituted on the four windows by the time the
Irrigation Act shall apply in the resolution of the heirs inherited the property for upon acceptance of it,
controversy. they tolerated the existence of an easement by the
way of the four windows. The Court affirmed appellate
Held: courts decision that a title to the easement was
The Bureau has already said in its decision that issue acquired because of its continued existence upon
concerning servitude of waters shall be governed by partition of property to heirs and did not stipulate to
the Civil Code and such special laws if the code the contrary as under Article 541 of the Civil Code.
provides no guidelines thereof as provided under They acquired a title to the easement, upon toleration
Article 168 of the code. Concerning the dispute on of the existence of the easement which was an
water servitude, since the irrigation canal was built at implied contract to the continuation of the easement,
the time of the lands conveyance to Valisno, he by way of prescription. Further, petitioner cannot
obtained therefrom an equivalent title to the water allege that he was an innocent purchaser because
rights from Honorata to continue using it as provided he was duty bound to ascertain that the property he
for under Article 624. Such water right was passed to bought was bound to an easement of light and view
him, as well as improvements to Honorarias property, and easement of altius non tollendi. Whether or not
at the time of the conveyance. the original owner died on 1982 or 1885 which he
alleged, still the easements remains to be constituted
APPEALED DECISION SET ASIDE. when he bought the property of Maria Encarnacion.

DECISION AFFIRMED

Art. 541 Art. 621

1
Quimen vs. CA Villarico vs. Sarmiento
G.R. No. 112331 G.R. No. 136438

Facts: Facts:
Private respondent Yolanda Oliveros bought the lot Petioners lot was separated from the Ninoy Aquino
belonging to his uncle Antonio Quimen, a land without Avenue, a public highway, by a strip of land belonging
access to the road public, with an inducement by her to the government. The department of Public Works
petitioner Aunt Anastacia that she will give her a right and Highways constructed stairways thereon for
of way on her adjoining property for P200 per square people to have access to the highway. In 1991,
meter. When Yolanda offered Anastacia the payment, respondents build a house on that portion of
the latter refused to accept denying the promise of government land and constructed establishments for
right of way to her once she bought the property. commercial purposes. In 1993, petitioner acquired
Yolanda filed an action with a prayer of right of way title over the 74.30 square meter of that government
through Anastacias property. The trial court land by exchange of real property and such was
dismissed the complaint holding that the space at the registered to his name. He now instituted accion
back of her fathers house which a store was situation publiciana as against respondents to assert his right
was the better right of way because it is shorter than of way which was blocked by reason of the structures
that of Anastacias property. But the Court of Appeals they built thereon. The trial court ruled that he was not
reversed the decision saying that respondent has the deprived a right of way and that he could use another
right of way through petitioners property and as it street as passageway. The Court of Appeals held the
was the one which will cause the least damage and same.
detriment to the servient estate.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner has a right of way
Issue: Whether or not respondent has a right of over the land under the possession of
way through petitioners property. respondents.

Held: Held:
The Court held that she has. Article 650 of the Civil The Court held that he has none. Article 420 of the
Code provides that the right of way must be the one Civil Code provides that government land cannot be
which has the shortest route and which will cause the subject of commerce nor can be burdened by any
least damage and detriment to the servient state. voluntary easement. Therefore, petitioner cannot
Though the easement to petitioners property in the claim his right of way over the land under possession
case at bar is longer than the one located at the back by respondents. Also, he cannot use accion
of respondents house which has a store blocking it, publiciana as a remedy to obtain a right of way.
the requirement that it can bring the least prejudice to However, he can have a claim against respondents
the servient estate must prevail over the shortness of on the portion already conveyed to him by the
the route to the public highway. The less damage will government.
be incurred not as when the store made of strong
materials should be removed. More so, the conditions JUDGMENT AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
for a valid grant of right of way through petitioners
property, which are:
1. the dominant estate is surrounded by other
immovables without an adequate outlet to public
highway

2. the dominant estate is willing to pay the proper


indemnity

3. the isolation was not due to the acts of the


dominant estate

4. the right of way being claimed is the least


prejudicial to the servient estate
are met by the circumstances at hand.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

2
National Power Corporation vs. Tiangco Preysler, Jr. vs. CA
G.R. No. 170846 G.R. No. 158141

Facts: Facts:
Private respondents Aurellano, Lourdes, and Nestor Petitioner owns lots in the subdivision of private
Tiangco are owners of the 152, 187 square meter respondent and owns two lots adjacent to the latters
land in Tanay, Rizal where 19, 423 of which was land. To enter into his two parcels of land, one has to
sought to be expropriated by the National Power pass through respondents property. Preysler offered
Corporation (NPC). The petitioner, which is a P10,000 as payment for the easement of the right of
government-owned and controlled corporation, was way but which was refused by respondent. He now
authorized to acquire private property and to exercise barricaded the front gate of Preyslers property so that
the right of eminent domain by its charter Republic petitioner and his family cannot enter their property
Act 6395. It negotiated with respondents about the through the subdivision. Petitioner filed a complaint
sale of that portion of their land planted with fruit- for Right of Way with preliminary prohibitive injunction
bearing trees but to no avail. And so, on November before the trial court. It ruled that respondent remove
20, 1990, NPC filed an expropriation complaint before the barricade and issued the writ to stop him from
the trial court of Tanay, Rizal. The trial court issued a obstructing petitioners entry to his property through
condemnation order granting the NPC the right to the subdivision. After then, Preysler used the
take possession of the property. After the valuation subdivision to transport heavy equipments and
for the just compensation presented by parties, the constructions materials to develop his property.
trial court ruled that NPC has to give P40,959 to Respondent moved to dissolve the writ as petitioners
respondents as payment of just compensation based action is a violation to his right to peaceful possession
on 1984 tax declaration of the land and P324,750 for of his property but the trial issued maintained its order
compensation for improvements on the land for respondent to cease hindering petitioner from
expropriated with legal interest. Upon appeal, the entry to his property with amendments extending to
Court of Appeals ruled that the just compensation of Preyslers visitors, guests, contractors, and other
the land was to be at P116,538 as from 1993 tax persons he authorized entry to respondents property.
declaration and the compensation for the land Upon appeal, CA lifted the writ and reinstated the
improvements be at P325,025. original writ.

Issue: Whether or not the valuation for the just Issue: Whether or not there was a legal basis for
compensation be based at the 1984 or 1993 tax the issuance of the amended writ and whether or
declaration, and not the right of way for petitioner extends to his
whether or not NPC should pay for the value of visitors, contractors, workers, and authorized
the land or only 10% of the lands market value as persons.
under Presidential Decree 938.
Held:
Held: The Court held that there was no basis for the
The Court held that the value of the just amended writ and that the right of way granted under
compensation for the land should be computed for the original writ for petitioners visit and inspection of
its value at the time of its talking which was in his property was the only access allowed to him. The
1990 when NPC filed for the expropriation extension of right of way to other people connected
proceedings and should not be based in the 1984 or with petitioner is not covered under the original writ
1993 tax declarations. Also, since the burden on the and cannot be applied for to amend it to the present
property by way easement of right of way is perpetual writ. But since there is a need for petitioner to use
in nature where NPC can expand the structure it is respondents property for the ongoing construction in
going to build, expropriator should pay for the his property, he should be granted a temporary
value of the land sought to be expropriated and not easement which is indispensable for construction of
only for the 10% of its value. petitioners property after payment of proper
indemnity to respondent as under Article 656.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS.
JUDGMENT MODIFIED. CASE REMANDED TO
TRIAL COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF
INDEMNITY FOR TEMPORARY EASEMENT.

3
Fabie vs. Lichauco Saenz vs. Hermanos
No. 3598 No. 2085

Facts: Fabie applied for registration of his property Facts: Saenz and Hermanos owns adjoining lots.
but recognizes an easement in favor of the estates of The latter built a house out of strong materials where
respondent and Hijos de Roxas adjoining to his its side was less than two meters from petitioners lot.
property. The easement of right of way and drainage He also built windows on that side which the trial
was given by the Court of Land Registration in favor court found to be less than one meter from the
of the latter while their claim to easement of light and dividing line of Saenzs lot. Invoking Articles 581 and
view. Lichauco, however, insists that since an 582 of the Civil Code, petitioner claims that defendant
easement of right of way and of light and view existed cannot construct his house and open his windows
at the time where both their properties then belonged without conforming to the law. However, the trial
to Juan Bautista Santa Coloma was sold now as their court ruled in favor of defendant. Hence, the appeal.
two separate properties, those sign of easements
became as title for those easements to continue. The Issue: Whether or not defendant has a claim for
easement of light and view claimed by Lichauco is an easement of light and view.
constituted on a window of a gallery in her property.

Issue: Whether or not the gallery from which the Held: The Court held that defendant cannot. The way
windows are constituted existed at the time of the he constructed his house and his windows is
division and alienation of Colomas property. prohibited as under Article 582 the structure being
less than two meters from the dividing point of
petitioners lot. But he can avail of the easement of
Held: The documentary evidence presented at the light and view provided under Article 581 in so much
trial showed that gallery did not existed at the time of that he will build his windows at a 30 centimeters
the properties alienation. Respondent cannot claim an square dimension with an iron grate embedded in the
easement of light of view by virtue of a title for there is wall and a wire screen.
no sign of easement of light and view at the point of
reckoning. JUDGMENT REVERSED.

JUDGEMENT AFFIRMED.

Art. 622 sign of easement = title

4
Cortes vs. Tu-Tibo Timoner vs. People
No. 911 No. L-62050

Facts: House No. 65 in Calle Rosario, owned by Facts: Mayor of Daet, Camarines Norte Timoner
petitioners wife, is adjacent to House No. 63 ordered the fencing off of the stalls in the sidewalks of
belonging to defendant. When the latter raised the Maharlika Highway including a barbershop. These
roof of his house, it obstructed House No. 65 from establishments, however, were recommended for
receiving air and light through its windows. The trial closure for being harmful to health for failing to follow
court finds that petitioner did not in any way prohibited sanitary requirements by its Municipal Health Officer.
defendant from doing so. But he claimed that he They were also declared a public nuisance, as
acquired the easement of light and view from his categorized under Article 694, in a civil case, and the
constant and uninterrupted use of the windows for 59 barber shop was never able to reopen his business.
years which is a positive easement where the period Timoner was, however, charged guilty of grave
for acquisitive prescription begins at the time of the coercion. Such decision was affirmed by the appellate
enjoyment commenced. Defendant, on the other court. Hence, the appeal.
hand, contends that the easement is negative and so
the reckoning point must start from the time the
prohibition is served against him. The trial court ruled Issue: Whether or not the action of petitioner is
that easement is negative. Hence, the appeal. constitutive of the criminal act of grave coercion.

Issue: Whether or not easement is negative. Held: The Court held that it is not. Since the
establishments were proved to be a public nuisance
and that, as mayor, petitioner acted to abate them, his
Held: The Court held that easement of light and view act of fencing off the stalls within the bounds of his
constituted on a window of ones own wall duty as a public officer performing his duty. More so,
contemplates a negative easement which cannot be the third element of absence of authority to restrain
acquired by prescription as under Article 538 of the the will of another person in the crime of grave
Civil Code but by prohibition against the servient coercion is absent.
estate though a formal act. The indispensable
requisite being absent, the easement of light and view PETITIONER ACQUITTED.
has not been acquired.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

5
Pearl & Dean vs. Shoemart AC Enterprises, Inc vs. Frabelle Corporation
G.R. No. 148222 GR. No. 166744

Facts: Petitioner is in the business of advertising Facts: Petitioner owns the Feliza Building which is
display units as light boxes. They obtained a sitiated at the rear of the Frabelle Condominium I
copyright of the illuminated display units under the which is owned by respondent. Feliza has 36 exhaust
trademark Poster Ads. It has Metro Industrial of blowers from air-conditioning units on its building
Services as its manufacturer for their output. SMI and which produce a continuous, intense and unbearable
petitioner agreed for the formers lease and noise and hot air blasts directed towards the rear of
installation of the latters light boxes in its branches in Frabelle Condiminium. Respondent wrote requests to
Makati and Cubao. However, only the contract in petitioner to abate the nuisance but which was
Makati Branch was returned. SMI rescinded the ignored by the latter. Frabelle went filed a complaint
contract for Cubao. Two years later, Metro Industrial before the Pollution Adjudication Board. Pending the
Services manufactured light boxes for SMI. It also decision on the complaint, respondent requested
engaged the service of another corporation to make office of the Makati Mayor to cancel petitioners
for itself light boxes. A sister company of SMI was business permit. The complaint was directed to the
also found out to have been using the light boxes with NCR Environmental management Bureau and it ruled
that design of petitioner. It now filed a case for that there the exhaust on the blowers were not the
infringement of copyright and trademark, and unfair sole factor in the noise pollution. Unsatisfied with the
competition and for damages. The trial court held resolution, respondent filed a complaint for the
respondent guilty of the charges. However, the abatement of nuisance with a prayer for the issuance
appellate court reversed the decision holding that of preliminary and permanent injunction before the
there was no copyright to the light boxes themselves trial court of Malabon City. It ruled that there is a
but only to the technical drawing. Hence, the appeal. sufficient cause of action for respondent to file a
complaint and it ruled in the latters favor. Court of
Appeals ruled that respondent has the right to abate
Issue: Whether or not there was no infringement the nuisance to protect his property and proprietary
of trademark and copyright on petitioners rights against business losses.
Poster Ads.
Issue: Whether or not respondent has a cause of
action and RTC has the jurisdiction over the case.
Held: The Court held that there was no infringement
on the trademark Poster Ads because what petitioner Held: The Court held that a simple suit for abatement
did register was for the technical drawing of the light of nuisance is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
boxes alone which did not extend to the object itself. RTC where it is the one which has the right to declare
On the issue of patent, petitioner did not secure a whether a thing is a nuisance as under Article 694 of
patent for the light boxes and therefore, he cannot the Civil Code. More so, having suffered from the
prohibit others from using the light boxes though it nuisance, respondent has a cause of action where it
may be the same as to what they fabricate and thus, may institute an action to abate it as under Article 705
there is no cause of action for his complaint. and 706. There is cause of action if there is a right in
favor one party and an obligation not to violate that
PETITION DENIED. right for the other and there is a breach of that
obligation. LGUs are not vested with the power to
declare a thing a nuisance.

PETITION DENIED.

You might also like