Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

CMM DIGEST

North Negros Sugar Co. vs Hidalgo October 31, 1936 Easements


(Property)

Plaintiff: North Negros Sugar Co Defendant: Hidalgo Ponente: Recto FACTS: Plaintiff is the owner of a sugar central (known as mill site) and also its adjoining plantation Hacienda Begona. He constructed a road adjoining the mill site and the provincial highway. Plaintiff allows vehicles to pass upon paying toll charge of P0.15 for each one; pedestrians are allowed free passage. Defendant owns the adjoining Hacienda Sangay wherein he has a billiard hall and a tuba saloon (as in drinking place). The road of the plaintiff is the only means of access to get to Hacienda Sangay. At one point, plaintiff stopped defendant from using the said road. Hence, instead of taking the road to get to his Hacienda Sangay, defendant passed through Hacienda Begona in a passageway used by the carabaos. Plaintiff applied for injunction to restrain the defendant from entering/passing through his properties (road & Hacienda). ISSUE: WON injunction should be granted. HELD: NO. RATIO: For injunction to be granted, it must be established that the right sought to be protected exists, but also that the acts against which the injunction to be directed are violative of said right. In the case at bar, plaintiff failed to establish his right and that the defendant has committed/attempts to commit acts that endanger such right. The complaint does not state how and why the mere passage of defendant over plaintiffs estate conveying tuba to his Hacienda has caused damage to plaintiffs property rights. The real damage that the plaintiff seeks to avoid is the fact that tuba is disposed of at defendants hacienda in which the plaintiffs laborers have access (apparently, the plaintiff hates that his laborers are getting drunk in the tuba saloon of the defendant). This however, is a nothing more than an exercise of legitimate business on the part of the defendant. What the law does not authorize to be done directly, cannot be done indirectly (if plaintiff cannot enjoin defendant from selling tuba, neither can it obtain injunction to prevent him from passing over its property to transport tuba). (TOPICAL: on mode of acquiring easements): The road was constructed by the plaintiff on his own land and it made this road accessible to the public, regardless of class/group of persons/entities. This is a voluntary easement constituted in favor of the community. Indeed, the plaintiff may close the road at its pleasure as no period has been fixed when the easement was constituted, but while the road is still open, he may not capriciously exclude defendant from its use. Having the road devoted to the public in general, the road is charged with public interest and while so devoted, the plaintiff may not establish discriminatory

CMM DIGEST

North Negros Sugar Co. vs Hidalgo October 31, 1936 Easements


(Property)

exceptions against any private person. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing its use, but so long as he maintains it, he must submit to the control. Furthermore there exists a forcible right of way in favor of the defendant (CC 564) because those living in Hacienda Sangay have no access to the provincial road except through the road in question.