Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Coop vs. Obias et.

Al
In 1972 Bicol Sugar Developent Corporation !BIS"D#CO$ %as
establis&ed at 'iaao( Pili( Caarines Sur. In t&e sae )ear( BIS"D#CO
constructed a road !*t&e disputed road+$ , easuring appro-iatel) 7
eters %ide and 2.9 .iloeters long. /&e disputed road %as used b)
BIS"D#CO in &auling and transporting sugarcane to and 0ro its ill site
!Pensuil$ and &as t&us becoe indispensable to its sugar illing
operations.
123
On October 45( 1992( petitioner Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers
Cooperative( Inc. ac6uired t&e assets o0 BIS"D#CO. On April 19( 1994(
petitioner 7led a Coplaint
183
against respondents #dundo Obias( Per0ecto
Obias( 9ictor
respondents un:usti7abl) barricaded t&e disputed road b) placing baboos(
%oods( placards and stones across it( preventing petitioner;s and t&e ot&er
sugar planter;s ve&icles 0ro passing t&roug& t&e disputed road.
Petitioner alleged t&at BIS"D#CO constructed t&e disputed road pursuant to
an agreeent %it& t&e o%ners o0 t&e rice7elds t&e road traversed. /&e
agreeent provides t&at BIS"D#CO s&all eplo) t&e c&ildren and relatives
o0 t&e lando%ners in e-c&ange 0or t&e construction o0 t&e road on t&eir
properties. Petitioner contends t&at t&roug& prolonged and continuous use o0
t&e disputed road( BIS"D#CO ac6uired a rig&t o0 %a) over t&e properties o0
t&e lando%ners( %&ic& rig&t o0 %a) in turn %as ac6uired b) it %&en it boug&t
BIS"D#CO;s assets.
<espondent t&eir ans%er denied t&e said agreeent /&e) alleged t&at
BIS"D#CO( surreptitiousl) and %it&out t&eir .no%ledge and consent(
constructed t&e disputed road on t&eir properties and &as since t&en
interittentl) and discontinuousl) used t&e disputed road 0or &auling
sugarcane despite t&eir repeated protests. <espondents claied t&e)
tolerated BIS"D#CO in t&e construction and t&e use o0 t&e road since
BIS"D#CO %as a governent-o%ned and controlled corporation( and t&e
entire countr) %as t&en under =artial >a%.
'eld? in order 0or petitioner to ac6uire t&e disputed road as an
easeent o0 rig&t-o0-%a)( it %as incubent upon petitioner to s&o% its rig&t
b) title or b) an agreeent %it& t&e o%ners o0 t&e lands t&at said road
traversed.
Under civil law and its jurisprudence, easements are
either continuous or discontinuous according to the
manner they are exercised, not according to the presence
of apparent signs or physical indications of the existence
of such easements. /&us( easeent is continuous i0 its use is(
or a) be( incessant %it&out t&e intervention o0 an) act o0 an(
li.e t&e easeent o0 drainage@ and it is discontinuous if it is
used at intervals and depends on the act of man, like the
easement of right of way.

The easement of right of way is considered
discontinuous because it is exercised only if a person
passes or sets foot on somebody elses land. Like a road
for the passage of vehicles or persons, an easement of
right of way of railroad tracks is discontinuous because
the right is exercised only if and when a train operated by
a person passes over anothers property. !n other words,
the very exercise of the servitude depends upon the act
or intervention of man which is the very essence of
discontinuous easements.

t&e road in dispute is a discontinuous easeent not%it&standing t&at t&e
sae a) be apparent. /o reiterate( easeents are eit&er continuous or
discontinuous according to the manner they are exercised, not according to
t&e presence o0 apparent signs or p&)sical indications o0 t&e e-istence o0
suc& easeents. 'ence( even i0 t&e road in dispute &as been iproved and
aintained over a nuber o0 )ears( it %ill not c&ange its discontinuous
nature but sipl) a.e t&e sae apparent.