ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v PEDRO ROXAS
March 30, 1912 | Trent, J. | Easements times and enjoy it, it can only be founded upon agreement or upon
Digester: Angat, Christine Joy F.
SUMMARY: Roxas, in order to make his hacienda accessible from the public highway,
filed a claim for a right of way across the lot owned by the Archdiocese of Manila. He
alleged that his tenants had been using the said tract of land since time immemorial. The
Court said that he has no claim of right of way. Since he based his claim on prescription,
he failed to establish that the right of way was essential for the beneficial use of his
hacienda. Further, the tract of land was devoted for the use of the churchgoers; the fact
that his tenants were able to use them was due to the Archdiocese’s toleration.
DOCTRINE: If the ground for a claim of right of way is prescription but the right of
way is not essential for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant estate, the proof
showing adverse use—which is an affirmative claim—must be sufficiently strong and
convincing to overcome the presumption of permissive use or license.
FACTS:
● Pedro P. Roxas owns the Hacienda de San Pedro Macati. To enable his tenants to
travel from the Hacienda to Calle Tejeron, he filed a claim for a right of way across
parcel L, the lot owned by the Archdiocese of Manila.
o Parcel L is bounded on the north by an estero; on the west by hacienda, on
the southwest by Calle Tejeron; and on the west by lands of Francisco
Managen.
o The eastern line, which joins the hacienda, is 265 meters long. The claim of
right of way starts across parcel L at a point 198 meters from the southern
extremity of this line.
● During the trial, the parties established the following facts:
o The tract of land (located in parcel L) which connects Calle Tejeron and the
Hacienda, has grown from a 1.5 to 2 meters wide to 4 meters wide
o Since time immemorial, it has been used by the tenants of the Hacienda for
the passage of carts entering and leaving the Hacienda
o A church is constructed near the said tract, thus it is not only for the
exclusive use of the tenants of Roxas’ hacienda, it is also used by the
churchgoers, and sometimes by the people living in the Sitio of Suavoy, and
other people
● Court of Land Registration – denied the claim of right of way across lot L
RULING: Petition denied.
Whether the claim of right of way should be granted– NO.
● A right of way is a charge imposed upon real property for the benefit of another
estate belonging to a different owner. It is a privilege or advantage in land existing
distinct from the ownership of the soil.
o Because it is a permanent interest in another’s land with a right to enter at all
prescription.
o If the ground for a claim of right of way is prescription but the right of
way is not essential for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant estate,
the proof showing adverse use—which is an affirmative claim—must
be sufficiently strong and convincing to overcome the presumption of
permissive use or license.
IN THIS CASE:
● (1) the use of the road by the tenants of Roxas has not been such as to create
an easement by prescription or in any other manner (in other words, Roxas
failed to establish that the right of way was essential for the beneficial enjoyment of
the hacienda)
o Roxas’ claim of right of way cannot prosper as his basis for such claim is not
the necessity growing out of the peculiar location of his property, but by
prescription – the immemorial use by his tenants. It has not been shown
that the tenants’ use of the road was absolutely necessary in order to
cultivate the hacienda, as to deprive other people their right to pass by
the same road.
o In fact, it was shown that the tenants’ use of the road was only for
convenience; they can still reach Calle Tejeron by going other directions,
especially south, only 198 meters.
● (2) the use of said road by all has been by permission or tolerance of the
Archbishop of Manila (in other words, Roxas failed to prove that there was
adverse use, hence the presumption of permissive use was not overthrown)
o Where a tract of land, attached to a public meeting house (the church in this
case), is designedly left open and unenclosed for the convenience of the
members, the mere passage of persons over it in common with those for
whose use it was appropriated is to be regarded as permissive and
under an implied license, and not adverse. Until the owner of the land
thinks proper to enclose it, such use is not adverse and will not preclude it for
enclosing the land when other views of its interests renders it proper to do so.
o Though an adjacent proprietor may make such use of the open land more
frequently than another, the same rule will apply unless there be some
decisive act indicating a separate and exclusive use under a claim of right.
o IN THIS CASE: The road was intended by the Archbishop of Manila for the
convenience of the members or worshippers of the church; that the tenants
and other people were allowed to use it more frequently was just mere
toleration on the part of the Archbishop. Roxas failed to establish that he has
a claim of right over the said tract of land, hence, their use of the land remain
permissive and not adverse.
● To allow the Roxas’ claim that because his tenants has used the said tract of land
since time immemorial, thus amounting to acquisition of a right of way over said
land, will result to prohibition of travel: a man will most likely disallow his neighbor
to pass in his land if after a lapse of time, he will be compelled to keep the land
open for the neighbor’s benefit and enjoyment.