6/27/2014

G.R. No. L-66520

TodayisFriday,June27,2014

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.L66520August30,1988
EDUARDOC.TAEDO,petitioner,
vs.
HON.JUANITOA.BERNAD,PresidingJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourt,7thJudicialRegion,BranchXXI,
CebuCitySpousesROMEOSIMandPACITAS.SIMandSpousesANTONIOCARDENASandMAELINDA
CARDENAS,respondents.
NumerianoF.Capangpanganforpetitioner.
MeinradoP.Paradesforprivaterespondents.

PADILLA,J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorarioftheOrderissuedbytherespondentjudge,Hon.JuanitaA.Bernadon5
December1983,whichdismissedthecomplaintforlegalredemptionfiledbythepetitionerinCivilCaseNo.CEB
994oftheRegionalTrialCourtofCebu,andtheOrderofthesamerespondentjudge,dated20January1984,
whichdeniedpetitioner'smotionforreconsideration.
Thefacts,inbrief,areasfollows:
TheprivaterespondentAntonioCardenaswastheowneroftwo(2)contiguousparcelsoflandsituatedinCebu
CitywhichhehadinheritedfromLourdesCardenasandmoreparticularlyknownasLot7501A,withanareaof
140 square meters and Lot 7501B, with an area of 612 square meters. On Lot 7501A is constructed an
apartment building, while the improvements on Lot 7501B consist of one fourdoor apartment of concrete and
strongmaterialsonetwostoreyhouseofstrongmaterialsabodegaofstrongmaterialsandaseptictankforthe
commonuseoftheoccupantsofLots7501Aand7501B.AsmallportionoftheapartmentbuildingonLot7501
AalsostandsonLot7501B.
On5February1982,saidAntonioCardenassoldLot7501AtohereinpetitionerEduardoC.Taedo.1
AntonioCardenas,onthatsameday,alsomortgagedLot7501BtosaidEduardoC.Taedoasasecurityforthe
paymentofaloanintheamountofP10,000.00.2
AntonioCardenasfurtheragreedthathewouldsellLot7501BonlytoEduardoTaedoincaseheshoulddecide
tosellit,astheseptictankinLot7501BservicesLot7501AandtheapartmentbuildingonLot7501Ahasa
partstandingonLot7501B.Thiswasconfirmedinaletter,dated26February1982,whereinAntonioCardenas
askedTaedonottodeductthemortgageloanofP10,000.00fromthepurchasepriceofLot7501A"becauseas
wehavepreviouslyagreed,IwillselltoyouLot7501B."3
AntonioCardenas,however,soldLot7501BtothehereinrespondentspousesRomeoandPacitaSim. 4 Upon
learning of the sale, Eduardo Taedo offered to redeem the property from Romeo Sim. But the latter refused. Instead,
RomeoSimblockedthesewagepipeconnectingthebuildingofEduardoTaedobuiltonLot7501A,totheseptictankin
Lot 7501B. He also asked Taedo to remove that portion of his building enroaching on Lot 7501B. As a result, Eduardo
Taedo, invoking the provisions of Art. 1622 of the Civil Code, filed an action for legal redemption and damages, with a
prayerfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunction,beforetheRegionalTrialCourtofCebu,docketedthereinasCivil
CaseNo.CEB994,againstthespousesRomeoandPacitaSim,AntonioCardenasandhiswifeMaeLindaCardenas,the
RegisterofDeedsofCebuCity,andBancoCebuano,CebuCityDevelopmentBank.5

Answering,thespousesRomeoandPacitaSimclaimedthattheyaretheabsoluteownersofLot7501Bandthat
Eduardo Taedo has no right to redeem the land under Art. 1622 of the Civil Code as the land sought to be
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/aug1988/gr_l_66520_1988.html

1/4

6/27/2014

G.R. No. L-66520

redeemedismuchbiggerthanthelandownedbyTaedo.6
AntonioCardenas,upontheotherhand,admittedthathehadagreedtosellLot7501BtoEduardoTaedoand
claimedbywayofcrossclaimagainstthespousesRomeoandPacitaSimthattheDeedofSalehehadexecuted
infavorofsaidspouseswasonlyintendedasanequitablemortgage,tosecurethepaymentofamountsreceived
byhimfromsaidspousesaspettyloans.7
In answer to the crossclaim, the spouses Romeo and Pacita Sim insisted that the sale executed by Antonio
CardenasofLot7501Bintheirfavorwasanabsoluteone.8
Thereafter, or on 14 October 1983, the spouses Romeo and Pacita Sim filed motions to dismiss the complaint
andthecrossclaim,forlackofcauseofaction.9
Actinguponthesemotionsandotherincidentalmotions,therespondentjudgeissuedthequestionedorderof5
December1983dismissingthecomplaintandcrossclaim.10
Taedofiledamotionforreconsiderationoftheorder,buthismotionwasdeniedon20January1984.11
Hence,thepresentrecoursebypetitionerTanedo.
TheCourtfindsmeritinthepetition.Thedismissalofthecomplaintonthegroundoflackofcauseofaction,is
precipitate. The settled rule where dismissal of an action is sought on the ground that the complaint does not
stateacauseofactionis,thattheinsufficiencyofthecauseofactionmustappearonthefaceofthecomplaint.
And the test of the sufficiency of the ultimate facts alleged in the complaint to constitute a cause of action, is
whetherornot,admittingthefactsalleged,thecourtcanrenderavalidjudgmentuponthesameinaccordance
withtheprayerofthecomplaint.Forthispurpose,themovantisdeemedtoadmithypotheticallythetruthofthe
factsthusaverred.12
In the instant case, it cannot be denied that petitioner Tanedo cannot redeem the entire Lot 7501B from the
spousesRomeoandPacitaSimpursuanttotheprovisionsofArt.1622RomeoandPacitaSimpursuanttothe
provisionsofArt.1622oftheCivilCode,sincethelotsoughttoberedeemed,hasanareaof612squaremeters
which is much bigger, areawise, than the lot owned by petitioner Taedo. However, the petitioner seeks to
purchaseonlythatsmallportionofLot7501Boccupiedbyhisapartmentbuilding,becausethespousesRomeo
andPacitaSimhadtoldhimtoremovethatportionofhisbuildingwhichenroachesuponLot7501B.Whetheror
notthisispossibleshouldhavebeendeterminedatthepretrialstageortrialonthemerits.
Besides,theactionofpetitionerTaedoisalsooneforrecoveryofdamagesbyreasonofbreachofpromiseby
the respondent Antonio Cardenas to sell Lot 7501B. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the amended complaint read, as
follows:
3. That by written agreement, plaintiff and defendant spouses Antonio Cardenas and Mae Linda
CardenasagreedthatintheeventtheydecidetoselltheadjacentLotNo.7501Bofthesubdivision
plan(LRC)Psd.23638,aportionofLotNo.7501ofthecadastralsurveyofCebu,LRC(GLRC)Cad.
RecordNo.9465,situatedintheCityofCebu,containinganareaofSIXHUNDREDTWELVE(612)
SquaremetersmoreorlesswhichlotisadjacenttoLotNo.7501Aoftheplaintiffandwherepartof
the plaintiffs apartment is standing on, the same should be sold to the plaintiff, but far from
compliance of the written agreement, defendant spouses Antonio Cardenas and Mae Linda
Cardenassureptiously[sic]soldtheaforestatedLotNo.7501Btothedefendantspouses,Romeo
Sim and Pacita Sim on July 23, 1982 as per Deed of Sale notarized by Notary Public, Jorge S.
OmegaandenteredinhisNotarialRegisterasDoc.No.462PageNo.94BookNo.11,Seriesof
1982
4.ThatduetothesalebythedefendantspousesAntonioCardenasandMaeLindaCardenasofthe
propertyinquestiontospousesRomeoSimandPacitaLim,plaintiffsufferedmoraldamagesinthe
formofmentalanguish,sleeplessnights,mentaltorture,forwhichheisentitledtoacompensationin
theamounttobeestablishedduringthetrialofthecaseandhasincurredlitigationexpensessubject
forreimbursententandattorneysfeeinthesumofP10,000.00whichshouldbechargeabletoboth
defendantspouses13
and the plaintiff (herein petitioner) prayed, among others: "(c) That defendant spouses Romeo Sim and Pacita
Sim and spouses Antonio Cardenas and Mae Linda Cardenas be ordered to pay plaintiff moral damages,
litigationexpensesandattorneysfeesintheamountofP50,000.00."14
Thattherewasawrittenagreement,asallegedinthecomplaint,betweentheplaintiffEduardoTaedoandthe
defendantAntonioCardenasisadmittedbythelatter.Inhisanswer,heallegedthefollowing:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/aug1988/gr_l_66520_1988.html

2/4

6/27/2014

G.R. No. L-66520

ALLEGATIONSastowrittenagreementisADMITTED,but,specificallydeniesthathereindefendants
SUREPTIOUSLY[sic]SOLDthelotinquestiontotheotherdefendantSpousesSimthetruthis,that
thehereindefendants[sic]wasrequiredtoexecutetheDeedofSaledescribedinthisparagraph3
assecurityforthepersonalloansandotherformsofindebtednessincurredfromtheSpousesSims
butneverasaconveyancetotransferownership15
Considering this admission of defendant Cardenas, and that his promise to sell Lot 7501B to Eduardo Taedo
appears to be for a valuable consideration, a trial is necessary to determine, at the very least, the amount of
damagessufferedbytheplaintiffEduardoTafiedobyreasonofsuchbreachofpromisetosell,ifindeedthereis
suchabreach.
Moreover,thefindingofthetrialcourtthatpetitionerTaedo'srighttocontinuetousetheseptictank,erectedon
Lot7501B,ceaseduponthesubdivisionofthelandanditssubsequentsaletodifferentownerswhodonothave
the same interest,16 also appears to be contrary to law. Article 631 of the Civil Code enumerates the grounds for the
extinguishmentofaneasement.Saidarticleprovides:

Art.631.Easementsareextinguished:
(1)Bymergerinthesamepersonoftheownershipofthedominantandservientestates
(2) By nonuser for ten years with respect to discontinuous easements, this period shall be
computed from the day on which they ceased to be used and, with respect to continuous
easements,fromthedayonwhichanactcontrarytothesametookplace
(3)Wheneitherorbothoftheestatesfallintosuchconditionthattheeasementcannotbeusedbut
itshallreviveifthesubsequentconditionoftheestatesoreitherofthemshouldagainpermititsuse,
unless when the use becomes possible, sufficient time for prescription has elapsed, in accordance
withtheprovisionsoftheprecedingnumber
(4)Bytheexpirationofthetermorthefulfillmentoftheconditions,iftheeasementistemporaryor
conditional
(5)Bytherenunciationoftheownerofthedominantestate
(6)Bytheredemptionagreeduponbetweentheownersofthedominantandservientestates.
As can be seen from the above provisions, the alienation of the dominant and servient estates to different
personsisnotoneofthegroundsfortheextinguishmentofaneasement.Onthecontrary,useoftheeasementis
continuedbyoperationoflaw.Article624oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Art. 624. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates, established or
maintainedbytheownerofboth,shallbeconsidered,shouldeitherofthembealienated,asatitlein
orderthattheeasementmaycontinueactivelyandpassively,unless,atthetimetheownershipofthe
twoestatesisdivided,thecontraryshouldbeprovidedinthetitleofconveyanceofeitherofthem,or
the sign aforesaid should be removed before the execution of the deed. This provision shall also
applyincaseofthedivisionofathingownedincommonbytwoormorepersons.
In the instant case, no statement abolishing or extinguishing the easement of drainage was mentioned in the
deed of sale of Lot 7501A to Eduardo Taedo. Nor did Antonio Cardenas stop the use of the drain pipe and
septic tank by the occupants of Lot 7501A before he sold said lot to Eduardo Tafiedo. Hence, the use of the
septictankiscontinuedbyoperationoflaw.Accordingly,thespousesRomeoandPacitaSimthenewownersof
theservientestate(Lot7501B),cannotimpair,inanymannerwhatsoever,theuseoftheservitude.17
WHEREFORE, the Orders complained of are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The respondent judge or
another one designated in his place is directed to proceed with the trial of this case on the merits. With costs
againstprivaterespondents.
SOORDERED.
MelencioHerrera,Paras,SarmientoandRegalado,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1AmendedComplaint,par.2,OriginalRecord,p.7.
2OriginalRecord,p.32.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/aug1988/gr_l_66520_1988.html

3/4

6/27/2014

G.R. No. L-66520

3Rollo,pp,2829.
4Id.,p.30.
5OriginalRecord,p.1.
6OriginalRecord,p.19.
7Id.,p.24.
8Id.,p.49.
9Id.,p.87,91.
10Rollo,p.32.
11Id.,p.43.
12Azurvs.Prov.Board,G.R.No.L22333,Feb.27,1969,27SCRA50.
13OriginalRecord,p.8.
14Id.,p.10.
15Id.,p.24.
16Id.,p.124.
17Art.629,CivilCode.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/aug1988/gr_l_66520_1988.html

4/4