Unisource Commercial and Development Corporation vs.

Joseph Chung, Kiat Chung and Kleto Chung

G.R No. 173252 July 17, 2009

Facts:

Petitioner Unisource Commercial and Development Corporation is the registered owner of a parcel of land
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 176253 of the Register of Deeds of Manila. The title
contains a memorandum of encumbrance of a voluntary easement which has been carried over from the
Original Certificate of Title of Encarnacion S. Sandico.

As Sandico's property was transferred to several owners, the memorandum of encumbrance of a voluntary
easement in favor of Francisco M. Hidalgo was consistently annotated at the back of every title covering
Sandico's property until TCT No. 176253 was issued in petitioner's favor. On the other hand, Hidalgo's
property was eventually transferred to respondents Joseph Chung, Kiat Chung and Cleto Chung under
TCT No. 121488.

On May 26, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition to Cancel the Encumbrance of Voluntary Easement
of Right of Way on the ground that the dominant estate has an adequate access to a public
road which is Matienza Street. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it is a
land registration case. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. Thereafter, the trial court
conducted an ocular inspection of the property.

On August 19, 2002, the trial court ordered the cancellation of the encumbrance of voluntary
easement of right of way in favor of the dominant estate owned by respondents. It found that
the dominant estate has no more use for the easement since it has another adequate outlet
to a public road which is Matienza Street.

Issue:

Whether or not to cancel the encumbrance of voluntary easement of right of way.

Held:

No, petitioner itself admitted that a voluntary easement of right of way exists in favor of
respondents. In its petition to cancel the encumbrance of voluntary easement of right of way,
petitioner alleged that the easement is personal. It was voluntarily constituted in favor of a
certain Francisco Hidalgo y Magnifico, the owner of described as Lot No. 2, Block 2650. It
further stated that the voluntary easement of the right of way in favor of Francisco Hidalgo y
Magnifico was constituted simply by will or agreement of the parties. It was not a statutory
easement and definitely not an easement created by such court order because `[the] Court
merely declares the existence of an easement created by the parties." In its Memorandum
dated September 27, 2001, before the trial court, petitioner reiterated that "[t]he annotation
found at the back of the TCT of Unisource is a voluntary easement."

As defined, an easement is a real right on another's property, corporeal and immovable,

whereby the owner of the latter must refrain from doing or allowing somebody else to do or
something to be done on his property, for the benefit of another person or tenement.
Easements are established either by law or by the will of the owner. The former is called legal,
and the latter, voluntary easements.