RELOVA V.

LAVAREZ- EASEMENT AND SERVITUDE

The enjoyment of the plaintiff of an easement for the maintenance of an irrigation aqueduct and a dam on the lands of defendant for a period of more than 20 years confers title thereto upon the plaintiff by virtue of prescription and burdens the lands of the defendants with a corresponding servitude.

plaintiff. At the time when the dam was destroyed the plaintiff had some five cavanes of land prepared to plant rice, but because of the escape of the water resulting from the destruction of the dam he was unable to raise his crop. Defendants claim that the plaintiff is not the owner of any lands watered by the aqueduct of the class known as padagat (rice lands planted in May). It was also alleged that the plaintiff suffered no damage by the destruction of the dam, because all the lands of plaintiff which are cultivated with the aid of water from the aqueduct are of the class known as binanbang (rice lands planted in August or September), and the

FACTS:

destruction of the dam in May and the consequent failure of water in the aqueduct at that period did not, and could not, damage the plaintiff or interfere with the proper cultivation of his lands.

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.

Lastly, defendants say that that the evidence on record does not establish the existence of the servitude in the lands of the defendants in favor of the lands of the plaintiff landowner for the maintenance of the aqueduct and dam in question.

ISSUE:

One of the defendants completely destroyed the dam and let all the water escape by the drainage ditch, so that none flowed on the land of the

Whether or not there was a valid servitude between the parties.

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.

SOLID MANILA CORP. VS. BIO HONG TRADING CO.- EASEMENT AND SERVITUDES
Servitudes are merely accessories to the tenement of which they form part, and even if they are possessed of a separate juridical existence, they cannot be alienated from the tenement or mortgaged separately.

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

Note: In a personal servitude, there is no "owner of a dominant tenement" to speak of, and the easement pertains to persons without a dominant estate, in this case, the public at large. (Merger, which presupposes ownership, is not possible.)

The petitioner claims that ever since, it (along with other residents of neighboring estates) made use of the above private alley and maintained and contributed to its upkeep, until sometime in 1983, when, and over its protests, the private respondent constructed steel gates that precluded unhampered use. On December 6, 1984, the petitioner commenced suit for injunction

FACTS:

against the private respondent, to have the gates removed and to allow full access to the easement.

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

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.

CA reversed holding that an easement is a mere limitation on ownership and that it does not impair the private respondent's title, and that since the private respondent had acquired title to the property, "merger" brought about an extinguishment of the easement.

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.

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.

(Art. 617) Even though Bio Hong acquired ownership over the property including the disputed alley as a result of the conveyance, it did not acquire the right to close that alley or otherwise put up obstructions thereon and thus prevent the public from using it, because as a servitude, the alley is

[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.]

supposed to be open to the public.

2) No genuine merger took place as a consequence of the sale in favor of the private respondent corporation. According to the Civil Code, a merger

ISSUE:

exists when ownership of the dominant and servient estates is consolidated in the same person. Merger requires full ownership of both

1) Whether or not easements may be alienated (sold) from the tenement or mortgaged separately 2) Whether or not the easement had been extinguished by merger.

estates. Note that The servitude in question is a personal servitude (established for the benefit of a community, or of one or more persons to whom the

encumbered estate does not belong). In a personal servitude, there is therefore no "owner of a dominant tenement" to speak of, and the easement pertains to persons without a dominant estate, in this case, the public at large. Thus, merger could not have been possible.

CID VS. JAVIER- NOTARIAL PROHIBITION

Whether or not the respondents Irene P. Javier, et al., owners of a building standing on their lot with windows overlooking the adjacent lot,

Notarial prohibition is required to start the running of prescription. Also Registration of the Immovable without the registration of the easement extinguishes the easement.

had acquired by prescription an enforceable easement of light and view arising from a verbal prohibition to obstruct such view and light, alleged to have been made upon petitioners predecessor-in-interest as owner of the adjoining lot, both of which lots being covered by Torrens titles.

FACTS: RULING: NO.

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. Art538s requirement is a formal act and not just any verbal or written act. Formal act contemplated in art538 in the OLD Civil Code pertains to an instrument acknowledged before a notary public. Prescription for a negative easement only begins when there is a notarial prohibition by the dominant estate. Respondents could have not acquired the easement by prescription because they have not fulfilled this requirement. Even assuming they have acquired it, the easement no longer exists because Note: easement of light and view is continuous and apparent so it is subject to prescription. the properties were registered under the Torrens system without any annotation or registration of the said easement.

ISSUES:

CORTES VS. YU-TIBO- NEGATIVE EASEMENT

Whether or not plaintiffs have acquired the easement through prescription?

A Notarial prohibition is required to start the running of prescription in a negative easement.

RULING: NO.

The Court clarified that mere act of opening one owns window is an act
FACTS:

of dominion not of easement. The easement here is the (possible) prohibition of creating any improvements on the property of the defendants (negative easement) that may impede or limit the use of the window. Thus, plaintiff is totally wrong in saying that prescription for the easement starts to kick in when the window was made and acknowledge by the adjacent owner. In fact, what is needed in this situation is a formal act through a notarial prohibition so that prescriptive period will start. The fact that the defendant has not covered the windows of the apellant/ plaintiff does not necessarily imply the recognition of the acquisitive prescription of the alleged easement as this might just be a result of a mere tolerance on the part of the defendant.

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.

ISSUE:

Plaintiffs asked for a rehearing but was again denied! Plaintiff mentions

about their windows and watersheds to be apparent easements, or just projitiendi and jus spillitiendi. The court says that the plaintiffs are obviously confused between the right exercised by owners and the rights provided in easements.

ABELLANA VS. CA- EASEMENTS OF RIGHT OF WAY

highway once acquired by the government through donation, purchase or expropriation.

Easements of right of way may not be acquired by prescription because it is not a continuous easement.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the easement of a right of way may be acquired by prescription?

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.
HELD:

No. Art. 620 of the Civil Code 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.

They pray that the concrete wall surrounding the village be taken down to allow easy access to the public highway.

RTC found for the petitioners. CA reversed, averring that road lots in subdivisions are private property and may only be used as a public

RONQUILLO VS. ROCO- EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY

Whether or not the easement of a right of way may be acquired by prescription?

Easements of right of way may not be acquired by prescription because it is not a continuous easement.

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
FACTS:

be considered continuous because its use is at intervals and is dependent on the acts of man.

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.

Minority Opinion (including the ponente): Easements of right of way may already be acquired by prescription, at least since the introduction into this jurisdiction of the special law on prescription through the Old Code of Civil Procedure, Act No. 190. Said law, particularly, Section 41 thereof, makes no distinction as to the real rights which are subject to prescription, and there would appear to be no valid reason, at least to the writer of this opinion, why the continued use of a path or a road or right of way by the party, specially by the public, for ten years or more, not by mere tolerance of the owner of the land, but

ISSUE:

through adverse use of it, cannot give said party a vested right to such right of way through prescription.

The uninterrupted and continuous enjoyment of a right of way necessary to constitute adverse possession does not require the use thereof every day for the statutory period, but simply the exercise of the right more or less frequently according to the nature of the use. (17 Am. Jur. 972) "It is submitted that under Act No. 190, even discontinuous servitudes can be acquired by prescription, provided it can be shown that the servitude was actual, open, public, continuous, under a claim of title exclusive of any other right and adverse to all other claimants'."

AMOR V. FLORENTINO- EASEMENT

RULING: FACTS:

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 Cortez case cannot be invoked by Amor because it involved acquisition by prescription. Art. 624 is acquisition by title.

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.

2. Amor failed to prove that the death of the testator occurred before the effectivity of the Old Civil Code. The facts show that it happened after the effectivity of the said code so the law on easement is already applicable. In any case, even if we assume Amors supposition, the law on easement was already integrated into the Spanish Law and in fact, had been

ISSUE:

established by Jurisprudence. Therefore, Amor is prohibitied from constructing the warehouse above the level of the window.

1. Whether or not there is an easement prohibiting Amor from doing said construction. 2. Whether or not the Civil Code may be applied

DISSENTING OPINION OF OZAETA.

1) The Majority opinio committed a travesty on justice when it ignored the evidence produced by Amor that the testators death occurred before the effectivity of the Code.

2) Hence, the law on easement will not apply. Moreover, the Spanish Law and the Partidas provided for only three ways of acquiring easements: 1) contract 2) testament 3) prescription. There was no provision similar to the doctrine of apparent sign.

3) There is no doctrine established by the Spanish Tribunal regarding the doctrine.

4) In this modern age of flourescent lights and air conditioning devices, the easement of light and view would be obsolete and deterrent to economic progress especially when in the cities, buildings are side to side with each other.

AMOR V FLORENTINO

4. ID.; WHEN AN EASEMENT IS DEEMED CREATED; NOBODY CAN HAVE AN EASEMENT OVER HIS OWN PROPERTY. The easement is not created till the division of the property, inasmuch as a predial or real easement is one of the rights in another's property, or jura in re aliena and nobody can have an

SYLLABUS

easement over his own property, nemini sua res servit.

1. EASEMENTS; LIGHT AND VIEW AND "ALTIUS NON TOLLENDI"; REQUIREMENT UPON THE OWNER OF SERVIENT ESTATE; NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE EASEMENTS. The easement of light and view and easement not to build higher (altius non tollendi) go together because an easement of light and view requires that the owner of the servient estate shall not build to a height that will obstruct the window. They are, as it were, the two sides of the same coin. While an easement of light and view is positive, that of altius non tollendi negative.

5. ID.; REQUISITE OF EASEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 530 OF CIVIL CODE. The requisite of an easement as required by article 530 of the Civil Code is that there must be two proprietors one, of the dominant estate and another, of the servient estate.

6. ID.; THE PRESENT CASE AND THAT OF CORTES vs. YU-TIBO (2 PHIL., 29), DISTINGUISHED. The present case is distinguished from that of the case of Cortes vs. Yu-Tibo (2 Phil., 29), that in the latter it involved acquisition of easement by prescription, while in the present case the question is the

2. ID.; MODES OF ESTABLISHING AND ACQUIRING EASEMENTS. According to article 536, Civil Code, easements are established by law or by will of the owners. Acquisition of easements is first by title or its equivalent and secondly by prescription.

acquisition of easement by title, or its equivalent, under article 541 of the Civil Code. While a formal prohibition was necessary in the former case in order to start the period of prescription, no such act is necessary in the present case because of the existence of the apparent sign which is a sufficient title in itself to create the easement.

3. ID.; WHAT CHARACTERIZES ITS EXISTENCE. Under article 541 of the Civil Code, the visible and permanent sign of an easement is the title that characterizes its existence. 7. ID.; EASEMENT ENJOYED BY FORMER OWNER SUBSISTS AFTER DIVISION OF ESTATE IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRACT TO THE CONTRARY. When an estate is divided between different persons, and in the contract nothing is said

about a mode of enjoyment different from that used by the original owner thereof, the necessary easements for said mode of enjoyment are understood to be subsisting.

11. ID.; EASEMENTS EXIST SIDE BY SIDE WITH OWNERSHIP. Absolute and unlimited dominion is unthinkable because it would destroy and defeat itself, inasmuch as proper enjoyment or property requires mutual service and forbearance among the adjoining estates. It is thus that easements, whether

8. ID.; LAW OF EASEMENT PRIOR TO CIVIL CODE IS THE SAME AS IN THE LATTER. The same principle enunciated in article 541 of the Spanish Civil Code was already an integral part of the Spanish law before the promulgation of the Civil Code in 1889, and, therefore, even if the case should be governed by the Spanish law prior to the Civil Code, the easement in question would also have to be upheld.

created by law or established by will of the parties, must perforce exist side by side with ownership.

FACTS: It appears that over 50 years ago, Maria Florentino owned a house and a camarin or warehouse in Vigan, Ilocos Sur. The house had and still has, on the north side, three windows on the upper story, and a fourth one on the ground floor. Through these windows the house receives light and air from the

9. ID.; PRESCRIPTIVE LAWS OF EASEMENT BEFORE AND AFTER THE CIVIL CODE. The prescriptive period under the Partidas was 10 years between persons who were present, and 20 years between absentees. (4 Manresa, 605.) According to article 537 of the Civil Code, continuous and apparent easements may be acquired by prescription for 20 years. Under sections 40 and 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the period is 10 years.

lot where the camarin stands. On September 6, 1885, Maria Florentino made a will, devising the house and the land on which it is situated to Gabriel Florentino, one of the respondents herein, and to Jose Florentino, father of the other respondents. In said will, the testatrix also devised the warehouse and the lot where it is situated to Maria Encarnacion Florentino. Upon the death of the testatrix in 1892, nothing was said or done by the devisees in regard to the windows in question. On July 14, 1911, Maria Encarnacion Florentino sold her

10. ID.; RIGHTS OF PURCHASERS OF LAND BURDENED WITH APPARENT EASEMENTS. Purchasers of lands burdened with apparent easements do not enjoy the rights of third persons who acquire property, though the burden is not recorded.

lot and the warehouse thereon to the petitioner, Severo Amor, the deed of sale stating that the vendor had inherited the property from her aunt, Maria Florentino. In January, 1938, petitioner destroyed the old warehouse and started to build instead a two-story house. On March 1st of that year, respondents filed an action to prohibit petitioner herein from building higher than the original structure and from executing any work which would shut off

the light and air that had for many years been received through the four windows referred to. The Court of First Instance found on the 15th of the same month that the construction of the new house had almost been completed, so the court denied the writ of preliminary injunction.

the time for the commencement of prescription for negative easements, "it refers to those negative easements which are the result and consequence of others that are positive, such as the easement not to build higher, or not to construct, which is indispensable to the easement of light."

"Art. 541. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates, established by the proprietor of both, shall be considered, if one of them is alienated, as a title so that the easement will continue actively and passively, unless at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary is stated in the deed of alienation of either of them, or the sign is made to disappear before the instrument is executed." It will thus be seen that under article 541 the existence of the apparent sign in the instant case, to wit, the four windows under consideration, had for all legal purposes the same character and effect as a title of acquisition of the easement of light and view by the respondents upon the death of the original owner, Maria Florentino. Upon the establishment of that easement of light and view, the concomitant and concurrent easement of altius non tollendi was also ISSUE/HELD: whether or not Article 541 applies to a division of property by succession. AFFIRMATIVE. there is an implied contract between them that the easements in question should be constituted. constituted, the heir of the camarin and its lot, Maria Encarnacion Florentino, not having objected to the existence of the windows. The theory of article 541, of making the existence of the apparent sign equivalent to a title, when nothing to the contrary is said or done by the two owners, is sound and correct, RATIO DICIDENDI: because as it happens in this case, there is an implied contract between them that the easements in question should be constituted.

These two easements necessarily go together because an easement of light and view requires that the owner of the servient estate shall not build to a height that will obstruct the window. They are, as it were, the two sides of the same coin. While an easement of light and view is positive, that of altius non tollendi is negative. Clemente de Diego states that when article 538 speaks of

If we do not apply article 541 of the Civil Code and we cannot apply it because Maria Florentino died in 1885 there is really a gap in the case for the respondents, but none in the case for the petitioner. 1 Under the Partidas, or rather in the absence of an express provision therein similar to article 541, the petitioner should win; and since the parties litigant herein are entitled to have

their case decided in accordance with the pre-Civil Code legislation in force in the Philippines as provided in the transitory provisions, since that legislation without any "gap-filling" is in favor of the petitioner, and since to "fill the gap" would prejudice him and unduly favor the respondents, the Court should abstain from so doing as a matter of law and justice.

It is not just to allow Maria Encarnacion Florentino or her successor in interest to repudiate her own undertaking, implied, it is true, but binding nevertheless. This easement is therefore a burden which Maria Encarnacion Florentino and her successor in interest willingly accepted. They cannot now murmur against any inconvenience consequent upon their own agreement.

First, as to the modes of establishing and acquiring easements. According to Article 536, easements are established by law or by will of the owners. Acquisition of easements is first by title or its equivalent and secondly by prescription. What acts take the place of title? They are mentioned in Articles 540 and 541, namely, (1) a deed of recognition by the owner of the servient estate; (2) a final judgment; and (3) an apparent sign between two estates, established by the owner of both, which is the case of article 541. Sanchez Roman calls such apparent sign under article 541 "supletoria del titulo constitutivo de la servidumbre."

During the construction of the new house by the petitioner, the respondents filed an action to stop the work. But petitioner continued the construction, so that when the Court of First Instance was ready to pass upon the preliminary injunction, the work had almost been finished. Petitioner, therefore, cannot complain if he is now ordered to tear down part of the new structure so as not to shut off the light from respondents' windows.

When petitioner bought this lot from the original coheir, Maria Encarnacion Florentino, the windows on respondents' house were visible. It was petitioner's duty to inquire into the significance of those windows. Having failed to do so,

standpoint of justice and public policy

he cannot now question the easement against the property which he purchased.

When Maria Encarnacion Florentino, as one of of the devisees, accepted the camarin and the lot, she could not in fairness receive the benefit without assuming the burden of the legacy. That burden consisted of the service in fact during the lifetime of the original owner, which service became a true easement upon her death. Recapitulating, we believe the easement of light and view has been established in favor of the property of respondents, for these reasons: VI

1. Maria Florentino having died in 1892, according to a finding of fact of the Court of Appeals, which we cannot review, Article 541 of the Civil Code is applicable to this case.

2. Granting, arguendo, that Maria Florentino died in 1885, nevertheless the same principle embodied in article 541 of the Civil Code was already an integral part of the Spanish law before the promulgation of the Civil Code in 1889, and therefore, even if the instant case should be governed by the Spanish law prior to the Civil Code, the easement in question would also have to be upheld.

3. The easement under review has been acquired by respondents through prescription.

4. The petitioner was not an innocent purchaser, as he was in duty bound to inquire into the significance of the windows.

5. Justice and public policy are on the side of the respondents.

- See more at: http://studentsofsocrates.blogspot.com/2010/10/amor-vflorentino.html#sthash.NM3xEGvb.dpuf

GARGANTOS V. CA- EASEMENT

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

FACTS:

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.

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(PR). 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not 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

VALDERRAMA V. THE NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO., INC.- EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY

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

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.

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.

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
HELD: NO ISSUE:

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

(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.

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

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.

the remaining period so the contention that it should be limited to the canes produced by the owners has no basis.

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

JAVELLANA V. IAC- POSITIVE EASEMENT

recovery of damages for allegedly denying his access to the use of the canal to his property.

When a positive easement is constituted, the servient owner is prevented from impairing the use of such by the dominant estate. The RTC ruled in favor of Javellana thus Florete appealed to the IAC which reversed the decision thus the case at bar.
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

ISSUE:

Whether or not an easement was established in favor of the school property

RULING: YES

A positive easement of water-right-of-way was constituted on the property of Florete as the servient estate in favor of the L. Borres Elementary School and the nearby lands as dominant estates since it has been in continuous use for no less than 15 years by the school fishpond as well as by the nearby adjacent lands.

As a positive easement, Florete had no right to terminate the use of the

canal without violating Art. 629 of the CC which provides that The owner of the servient estate cannot impair, in any manner whatsoever, the use of the servitude. Nevertheless if by reason of the place originally assigned or of the manner established for the use of the easement, the same should become very inconvenient to the owner of the servient estate, or should prevent him from making any important works, repairs or improvements thereon, it may be charged at his expense, provided he offers another place or manner equally convenient and in such a way that no injury is caused thereby to the owner of the dominant estate or to those who may have a right to the use of the easement.

> Canal is used by residents for salt-making using plastic bags, which is in competition with Marsal & Co. in the production of salt > the canal is a source of salt water, it is fresh and clean since the tide changes from the Iloilo River while the fishpond is stagnant and polluted > before the closure of the dikes, there were no floods in the vicinity > tube to be buried: 10-inch rubber tube > 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

When Florete closed the entrance of the canal and demolished portions of the main dike it impaired the use of the servitude by the dominant estates.

traverses school = 2 meters o ordinary days = no water > Florete only caused the canal to be deeper

Additional Facts: > One witness almost drowned > One witness saved a woman, who while picking shells fell into the canal > 2 witnesses took a bath in the canal, 1 when he was still a child, the other when he was still single

BENEDICTO V. CA 25 SCRA 145

FACTS:
Hendrick was the owner of a property which half of it was sold to Recto. An easement of way was annotated in the certificates of title. Subsequently, the remaining half of the property was sold to Herras who then closed and walled the part of land serving as easement of way.

HELD:
The easement is perpetual in character and was annotated in all the certificates of title. Absence of anything that would show mutual agreement to extinguish the easement, the easement persists.

TAEDO V BERNAD- EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENT

Taedo filed an action for legal redemption and damages against resps. Cardenas admitted that he had agreed to sell the lot to pet and claimed

An easement continues by operation of law. Alienation of the D and S estates to different persons is not a ground for extinguishment of easements absent a statement extinguishing it.

by way of cross claim against spouses Sim that the Deed of Sale he had executed was only intended as an equitable mortgage. RTC dismissed the complaint and the cross claim.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

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.

Whether or not the right to continue to use the septic tank ceased upon the subdivision of the land and its subsequent sale to different owners.

RULING: NO.

Cardenas sold Lot A and mortgaged Lot B to Eduardo Taedo (pet). He also agreed that should be decide to sell Lot B he would sell it to Taedo. However, Cardenas sold Lot B to Spouses Sim (resp). Sim blocked the sewage pipe connecting the building on Lot A to the septic tank. He also asked Tanedo to remove that portion of his building encroaching Lot B.

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.

ALCANTARA V. RITA 372 SCRA 364

FACTS:
Petitioners filed a case for alleged violations of their right of first refusal under PD1517, claiming to be urban lessees or tenants. The complaint was dismissed from the finding that they are not lessees.

HELD:
Where a person is allowed to construct his house on the land of another to facilitate gathering of fruits, this would be in the nature of a personal easement.