Benedicto vs.
CA
Article 631
Antecedent Facts:
The lots of Benedicto and Heras
previously belonged to one Miriam R.
Hedrick.
On September 29, 1917, Miriam R.
Hedrick sold a portion of her property to
Claro M. Recto and retained for herself
the remaining lots.
Between the portion sold to Claro M.
Recto and the one that remains in the
possession of Miriam R. Hedrick, there
is a passage about 3 to 4 meters wide.
The deed between Hedrick and Recto
stipulated the obligation of both parties
to respect the right of the other to the
use of the entire extension of said step
(passageway) for all time and all the
needs of each of the two properties.
This agreement was obligatory for all
those who subsequently acquired the
estates mentioned for any title.
Consequently, there was a new survey
of properties to fix the dividing line
between the properties of Claro M.
Recto and Miriam R. Hedrick.
FACTS:
Consequently, the property purchased
by Claro M. Recto became the subject of
a series of transfers:
a) From Claro M. Recto to
Emmanuel Conty;
b) From Emmanuel Conty to
Salvardo Benedicto
Likewise, the property belonging to
Miriam R. Herdrick became the subject
of a series of transfers:
a.) From Miriam R. Hedrick to Chow
Kwo Hsien;
b.) From Chow Kwo Hsien to
General Security and Investment
Co;
c.) From General Security and
Investment Co to Vicente Heras
Sometime in 1941, Heras demolished
the entire building situated on his
property.
Consequently, the trial court found that
the easement of way was found entirely
within the property of Benedicto,
contrary to the stipulation in the deed of
sale between Hedrick and Recto that it
should be between their properties, with
each contributing an equal portion of
his property.
Benedicto now claims that the said
easement has been extinguished by
nonuser and by the cessation of the
necessity for a passageway.
According to Benedicto, the easement
was originally constituted because the
buildings then erected on the respective
properties of Hedrick and Recto so
adjoined each other that the only way
the back portions of the properties
could be reached by their owners from
San Marcelino street was through the
passageway.
He, further claims, that when Heras
demolished the building in 1941 the
property gained direct access to San
Marcelino street with the result that
since then there has been no need for
the passageway.
Benedicto argues that since 1941 the
passageway ceased to be used.
It has not been used for 14 years from
the time the building of Heras was
demolished.
ISSUE:
W/N the easement between the
properties of Benedicto and Heras was
extinguished by non-user?
HELD:
No, the property was not extinguished
by non-user.
Article 631 of the New Civil Code
provides:
Art. 631. Easments are extinguished:
xxx xxx xxx
(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, from the day on which an
act contrary to the same took place;
(3) When either or both of the estates
fall into such condition that the
easement cannot be used; but it shall
revive if the subsequent condition of the
estates or either of them should again
permit its use, unless when the use
becomes possible, sufficient time for
prescription has elapsed, in accordance
with the provisions of the preceding
number; . . . .
First: There is no indubitable proof of
nonuser.
Benedicto merely assumes that the
passageway in question has not been
used since 1941 because the property of
Heras has gained direct access to the
San Marcelino street due to the
demolition of the building
But in this case, the prescriptive period
of 10 years has not yet elapsed.
It was exhibited in Benedicto’s
testimony that he had the passageway
walled in 1946 and the present action
was filed only on 1955. Hence, the
prescriptive period has not elapsed.
Second: Presumptive renunciation by
Heras of the use of the said passageway
cannot be inferred.
It would appear from the record that
Heras started the construction on 1941
on his parcel of land. Since the
easement in question was mainly a
vehicular passageway, the obvious need
for such passageway to the rear portion
of the projected apartment negates any
presumption of renunciation on the part
of Heras.
Third: The easement in this case is
perpetual in character.
As stated in their agreement:
"for all time and all the needs of
each of the two properties, the one
sold here to Claro M. Recto and the one
that remains in the possession of Miriam
R. Hedrick, this agreement being
mandatory for all those who
subsequently acquired for any title
the above mentioned farms "
Since there is nothing in the record that
would point to a mutual agreement
between any of the predecessors-in-
interest not between the petitioner and
the respondent themselves with respect
to the discontinuance or obliteration of
the easement annotated on the titles,
the continued existence of the easement
must be upheld and respected.
Indeed, when the easement in this case
was established, the parties
unequivocally made provisions for its
observance by all who in the future
might succeed them in dominion, and
this is the reason the permanent
character of the easement was
annotated on each and all of the
transfer certificates of title.