You are on page 1of 3


G.R. No. 180282 April 11, 2011
Crispin Dichoso fled a Complaint for Easement of Right
of Way gainst respondent Patrocinio L. Marcos.
Dichoso alleged that they claimed to have used a
portion of Lot No. !hich is o!ned "y Marcos since
#$% as they had no access to a pu"lic road to and
from their property.
&hat Marcos "loc'ed the passage!ay !ith piles of sand
and no! they cannot use the road anymore although
they have "een granted another passage!ay "y the
spouses (rce.
Dichoso then prayed that they)
. May they "e granted more or less an area of
*+ s,uare meters as right of !ay "y paying
.. /e annotated on Marcos0 title
1. Marcos pay them 1%- for (tty0s fees and cost
of suit
Marcos Moved for the dismissal dismissal of the
complaint on the ground of lac' of cause of action and
non2compliance !ith the re,uisite certifcate of non2
forum shopping.
(n ocular inspection !as held and Motion to dismiss of
Marcos !as denied.
R&C declared that Marcos0 ans!er failed to tender an
issue and su"mitted the case for decision
RTC: rendered a decision in favor of petitioners)
2Esta"lished the re,uisites to 3ustify an easement of right of !ay
2Dichoso in good faith as they e4pressed their !illingness to
pay proper indemnity
CA: reversed and set aside the R&C decision
2Right of !ay had already "een granted "y the 5other6 servient
estate7 no need to esta"lish an easement over respondent8s
2While the alternative route through the property of the 9pouses
(rce is longer and circuitous7 said access road is ade,uate.
C(N D:C;<9< /E EN&:&LED &< ( =R(N& <> LE=(L E(9EMEN&
<> R:=;& <> W(? >R<M &;E:R L(NDL<C-ED PR<PER&?
&;R<@=; &;E PR<PER&? <> M(RC<9 W;:C; :9 &;E 9;<R&E9&
R<@&E :N =<:N= &< (ND >R<M &;E:R PR<PER&? &< &;E
P@/L:C 9&REE& (ND W;ERE &;E? @9ED &< P(99A
(n easement involves an a"normal restriction on the property
rights of the servient o!ner and is regarded as a charge or
encum"rance on the servient estate. &herefore7it is incum"ent
upon the o!ner of the dominant estate to esta"lish "y clear and
convincing evidence the presence of all the preconditions "efore
his claim for easement of right of !ay may "e granted.Dichoso
failed in this regard.
(s it sho!s7 Dichoso had "een granted a right of !ay through
the ad3acent estate of 9pouses (rce "efore the complaint "elo!
!as even fled. Marcos alleged that this right of !ay is "eing
used "y the other estates !hich are similarly situated as
Dichoso. Dichoso do not dispute this fact. &here is also a reason
to "elieve that this right of !ay is 9pouses (rce8s outlet to a
pu"lic road since their property7 as it appears from the 9'etch
Map7 is also surrounded "y other estates. &he fact that 9pouses
(rce are not insisting on a right of !ay through respondent8s
property7 although an opening on the latter8s property is
undou"tedly the most direct and shortest distance to P. =omeB
9t. from the former8s property7 "olsters our conviction that they
have ade,uate outlet to the high!ay !hich they are no!
li'e!ise ma'ing availa"le to Dichoso.
&he convenience of the dominant estate has never "een the
gauge for the grant of compulsory right of !ay. &o "e sure7 the
true standard for the grant of the legal right is Cade,uacy.C
;ence7 !hen there is already an e4isting ade,uate outlet from
the dominant estate to a pu"lic high!ay7 as in this case7 even
!hen the said outlet7 for one reason or another7 "e
inconvenient7 the need to open up another servitude is entirely
W;ERE><RE7 premises considered7 the petition is DEN:ED. &he
Court of (ppeals Decision dated Danuary 17 .%%$ and
Resolution dated <cto"er .17 .%%$ in C(2=.R. CE No. F*+$ are
(>>:RMED.9< <RDERED.
G.R. No. 1%81&1 '(l) 11, 200*
>austo Preysler7 Dr. and his !ife o!ned lots in &ali /each
9u"division this su"division is o!ned "y >ar East
(side from the su"division7 Preysler 9P9 also o!ns t!o
parcels of land ad3acent to the su"division.
>or the Preysler 9P9 ho!ever to gain access to the t!o
parcels of land ad3acent to the su"division7 they have
to pass through &ali /each 9u"division.
With this Preysler 9P9 oGered P%7%%% for the
easement of right of !ay "ut >ar East Enterprises
refused it for "eing grossly inade,uate.
>ar East Enterprises "arricaded the front gate of
Preysler 9P9 property to prevent themfrom using the
su"division roads to access said lands.
Preysler 9P9 fled7 !ith the Regional &rial Court of
Nasug"u7 /atangas7 a Complaint for Right of Way !ith
prayer for preliminary prohi"itive in3unction against >ar
East Enterprises.
Tri"l Co(r+2 Rendered decision in favor of Preysler 9P9
Writ of preliminary in3unction !as issued
(fter . years7 Preysler 9P9 developed their property
ad3acent to &ali /each 9u"division.
>ar East Enterprises then moved to dissolve the !rit
claiming that the petitioner violated its right to
peaceful possession and occupation of &ali /each
9u"division !hen petitioner "rought in heavy
e,uipment and construction materials to develop his
F"r "s+ #+,rpris,s Ar-(.,#+:
>ar East Enterprises maintained that the damages that
may "e caused to its property far out!eigh the alleged
damages sought to "e prevented "y the Preysler 9P9.
&hat there is an alternate route availa"le to petitioner7
particularly the "arangay road leading to /alaytigue
and the Cala"arBon Road.
Pr,)sl,r SPS Ar-(.,#+:
(s'ed the court to clearly defne the action re,uired of
>ar East Enterprises to avert further damage and
inconvenience to Preysler 9P9
that his contractors7 visitors7 and other representatives
"e allo!ed access and persons he has authoriBed "e
allo!ed to install po!er lines over Preysler 9P9
RTC: (mended the !rit no! allo!ing
CA: 9et aside the amended !rit and reinstated the original !rit
!ith modifcation as to the amount of the "ond.
MR: Denied
!hether the right of passage allo!ed in the uncontested original
!rit applies not only to the petitioner and his household7 "ut
also to his visitors7 contractors7 construction !or'ers7 authoriBed
persons7 heavy e,uipment machinery7 and construction
materials as !ell as the installation of po!er lines.
Prefatorily7 !e note that !hat !as granted "y the trial court !as
the preliminary in3unction7 and that the main case for right of
!ay has not yet "een settled. We have in previous cases# said
that the o"3ective of a !rit of preliminary in3unction is to
preserve the status ,uo until the merits of the case can "e fully
heard. 9tatus ,uo is the last actual7 peacea"le and uncontested
situation !hich precedes a controversy.% &he Court of (ppeals
!as correct in its fndings that the last actual7 peaceful and
uncontested situation that preceded the controversy !as solely
the access of petitioner and his household to his property
outside the su"division for visits and inspections. (t the time the
!rit !as applied for in ##*7 there !as still no construction
going on in the property. :t !as merely ra! land. &he use of the
su"division roads for ingress and egress of construction !or'ers7
heavy e,uipment7 delivery of construction materials7 and
installation of po!er lines7 are clearly not part of the status
,uo in the original !rit. (long this line7 the Court of (ppeals
properly set aside the amended !rit and reinstated the original
@nder (rticle H*H of the Ne! Civil Code7 if the right of !ay is
indispensa"le for the construction7 repair7 improvement7
alteration or "eautifcation of a "uilding7 a temporary easement
is granted after payment of indemnity for the damage caused to
the servient estate. :n our vie!7 ho!ever7 Cindispensa"leC in this
instance is not to "e construed literally. =reat inconvenience is
suIcient. :n the present case7 the trial court found that
irrespective of !hich route petitioner used in gaining access to
his property7 he has to pass private respondent0s su"division.
&hus !e agree that petitioner may "e granted a temporary
easement. &his temporary easement in the original !rit diGers
from the permanent easement of right of !ay no! "eing tried in
the main case.
&he la! provides that temporary easement is allo!ed only after
the payment of the proper indemnity. (s there are neither
suIcient allegations nor esta"lished facts in the record to help
this Court determine the proper amount of indemnity7 it is "est
to remand the case to the trial court for such determination.
(dditionally7 !e fnd that the installation of electric po!er lines
is a permanent easement not covered "y (rticle H*H. (rticle H*H
deals only !ith the temporary easement of passage. Neither
can installation of electric po!er lines "e su"3ect to a
preliminary in3unction for it is not part of the status ,uo.
/esides7 more damage !ould "e done to "oth parties if the
po!er lines are installed only to "e removed later upon a
contrary 3udgment of the court in the main case.
W;ERE><RE7 the petition is P(R&:(LL? =R(N&ED.
We here"y order
5a6 private respondent to allo! the right of passage thru the
su"division "y the petitioner0s visitors and guests7 contractors7
construction !or'ers7 heavy e,uipment vehicles7 and delivery
construction materialsJ and
5"6 petitioner to pay private respondent the indemnity therefor
to "e determined "y the trial court. &he case is
here"yREM(NDED to the trial court for the determination of the
proper amount of indemnity for the temporary easement under
(rticle H+#.No pronouncement as to costs.
G.R. No. 18/011 F,2r("r) 2, 2011
Margarita Castro is o!ns a 1%s,m land in Manuela
;omes Las Pinas City.
Napoleon Monsod on the other hand7 o!ns a property
in Moon!al' Eillage !hich ad3oines the lot of Margarita
( more or less t!o 5.6 meters high fence is !hat only
divides Manuela ;omes from Moon!al' Eillage.
Napoleon Monsod7 caused the annotation of an adverse
claim against si4ty2fve 5H*6 s,.m. of the property of
Margarita Castro in Manuela ;omes. &he adverse claim
!as fled !ithout any claim of o!nership over the
property "ut 3ust asserting the e4isting legal easement
of lateral and su"3acent support at the rear portion of
his estate to prevent the property from collapsing7
since his property is located at an elevated plateau of
ffteen 5*6 feet7 more or less7 a"ove the level of
petitioner8s property. ( complaint for malicious mischief
and malicious destruction !as "efore the oIce of the
"arangay chairman "y Napoleon Monsod.
Margarita Castro fled a complaint for damages !ith
temporary restraining orderK!rit of preliminary
in3unction "efore the Regional &rial Court 5R&C6 of Las
PiLas City. 9he also prayed that the Register of Deeds
of Las PiLas City "e ordered to cancel the annotation of
the adverse claim on her property.
M"r-"ri+"3s Ar-(.,#+:
&here !as a lea' that caused the front portion of her
house to "e slippery7 she hired construction !or'ers to
see !here the lea' !as coming from &he !or'ers had
already started digging !hen police oIcers sent "y
respondent came and stopped the !or'ers from
fnishing their 3o"
When she "ought the property from Manuela ;omes in
##+7 there !as no annotation or e4istence of any
easement over the property.
Napoleon Monsod neither as'ed permission nor tal'ed
to her !ith regard to the use of H* s,.m. of her
property as easement.
RTC: :n favor or Margarita Castro
Adverse claim of respondent was non-registrable considering
that the basis of his claim was an easement and not an interest
adverse to the registered owner, and neither did he contest the
title of petitioner. Furthermore, the adverse claim of respondent
failed to comply with the requisites provided under Section 70
of residential !ecree "o. #$%&.
CA: reversed the decision of the trial court
'espondent(s adverse claim could not be sanctioned because it
did not fall under the requisites for registering an adverse claim,
the same might be duly annotated in the title as recognition of
the e)istence of a legal easement of sub*acent and lateral
support. +he purpose of the annotation was to prevent
petitioner from ma,ing in*urious e)cavations on the sub*ect
emban,ment as to deprive the residential house and lot of
respondent of its natural support and cause it to collapse.
'espondent only as,ed that petitioner respect the legal
easement already e)isting thereon
W<N the easement of lateral and su"3acent support e4ists on
the su"3ect ad3acent properties and7 if it does7 !hether the same
may "e annotated at the "ac' of the title of the servient estate.
(rticle +1$ of the Civil Code provides that the o!ner of a parcel
of land is the o!ner of its surface and of everything under it7
and he can construct thereon any !or's7 or ma'e
any plantations and e4cavations !hich he may deem proper.
;o!ever7 such right of the o!ner is not a"solute and is su"3ect
to the follo!ing limitations)
56 servitudes or easements
5.6 special la!s
516 ordinances
5+6 reasona"le re,uirements of aerial navigation7 and
5*6 rights of third persons
Respondent8s assertion that he has an adverse claim over the
H* s,.m. property of petitioner is misplaced since he does not
have a claim over the o!nership of the land. &he annotation of
an adverse claim over registered land under 9ection $% of
Presidential Decree *.#.+ re,uires a claim on the title of the
disputed land. (nnotation is done to apprise third persons that
there is a controversy over the o!nership of the land and to
preserve and protect the right of the adverse claimant during
the pendency of the controversy. :t is a notice to third persons
that any transaction regarding the disputed land is su"3ect to
the outcome of the dispute.
:n reality7 !hat respondent is claiming is a 3udicial recognition of
the e4istence of the easement of su"3acent and lateral support
over the H* s,. m. portion of petitioner8s property covering the
land supportKem"an'ment area. ;is reason for the annotation is
only to prevent petitioner from removing the em"an'ment or
from digging on the property for fear of soil erosion that might
!ea'en the foundation of the rear portion of his property !hich
is ad3acent to the property of petitioner.
:n the instant case7 an easement of su"3acent and lateral
support e4ists in favor of respondent. :t !as esta"lished that the
properties of petitioner and respondent ad3oin each other. &he
residential house and lot of respondent is located on an elevated
plateau of ffteen 5*6 feet a"ove the level of petitioner8s
property. &he em"an'ment and the riprapped stones have "een
in e4istence even "efore petitioner "ecame the o!ner of the
property. :t !as proven that petitioner has "een ma'ing
e4cavations and diggings on the su"3ect em"an'ment and7
unless restrained7 the continued e4cavation of the em"an'ment
could cause the foundation of the rear portion of the house of
respondent to collapse7 resulting in the destruction of a huge
part of the family d!elling.
We sustain the C( in declaring that a permanent in3unction on
the part of petitioner from ma'ing in3urious e4cavations is
necessary in order to protect the interest of respondent.
;o!ever7 an annotation of the e4istence of the su"3acent and
lateral support is no longer necessary. :t e4ists !hether or not it
is annotated or registered in the registry of property. ( 3udicial
recognition of the same already "inds the property and the
o!ner of the same7 including her successors2in2interest.
<ther!ise7 every ad3oining lando!ner !ould come to court or
have the easement of su"3acent and lateral support registered
in order for it to "e recogniBed and respected.
G.R. No. 11/02/ '(#, 22, 2011
&he &uaBons are co2o!ners of a 1H7$1Hs,m coconut
land located in 9amar.
>or ta4 purposes the land has "een declared in the
name of the predecessor2in2interest of the &uaBons7 the
late Mr. Pascual &uaBon.
When N(P<C<R* installed transmission lines on a
portion of the land for its 1*% -E Leyte2LuBon ;EDC
Po!er &L Pro3ect7 land !ere destroyed.
:nstead of initiating e4propriation proceedings7
N(P<C<R M Mr. &uaBon entered into a mere right2of2
!ay agreement. &he total amount is P.H7#$F...
&he amount represents payments for)
P.17#$%.%%2 Cdamaged improvementsC
P7F%F..2 Ceasement and to!er occupancy
P7.%%.%% 2 Cadditional damaged
&he &uaBons iled a complaint against N(P<C<R for 3ust
compensation and damages7 claiming that no
e4propriation proceedings !ere made and that they
only allo!ed N(P<C<R entry into the land after "eing
told that the fair mar'et value !ould "e paid.
&hey lots similarly located in Cat"alogan7 9amar7
li'e!ise utiliBed "y N(P<C<R for the similar pro3ects7
!ere paid 3ust compensation in sums ranging
from P.7%%%.%% toP.7.%%.%% per s,uare meter7
pursuant to the determination made "y diGerent
"ranches of the R&C in 9amar.
N(P<C<R fled a motion to dismiss
RTC: =ranted motion to dismiss
CA: Reversed M 9et (side decision
"A-.-'(s acquisition of the right-of-way easement over the
portion of the appellant(s land was a de/nite ta,ing under the
power of
eminent domain, "A-.-' is liable to pay appellants 0referring
to the respondents herein1 *ust compensation and not only
easement fee.
N(P<C<R89 &R(N9M:99:<N L:NE &R(EER9ED <N
RE9P<NDEN&89 PR<PER&?. RE9P<NDEN&9 DEM(ND9 &;(& &;E?
/E P(:D >@LL E(L@E <> &;E:R L(ND (9 D@9& C<MPEN9(&:<N.
N(P<C<R (R=@E9 &;(& :& 9;(LL <NL? P(? E(9EMEN& >EE
P@R9@(N& &< 9EC&:<N 12(5/6 :&9 C;(R&ER7 R.(. H1#*7 W;:C;
PRE9CR:/E9 ( ><RM@L( ><R E(9EMEN& >EE. :9 N(P<C<R
N<. &;E DE&ERM:N(&:<N <> D@9& C<MPEN9(&:<N :9 ( D@D:C:(L
>@NC&:<N. &;E ><RM@L( PR<E:DED :N N(P<C<R89 C;(R&ER :9
N<& /:ND:N= <N &;E C<@R&. :& :9 <NL? ( =@:DE.
N(P<C<R8s protest against the relevancy of =utierreB7 heavily
relying as it does on the supposed conclusiveness of 9ection 12
(5"6 of R.(. H1#* on 3ust compensation due for properties
traversed "y transmission lines7 has no merit. We have held in
numerous cases that 9ection 12(5"6 is not conclusive upon the
courts.NON11O :n National Po!er Corporation v. Maria /agui7 et
al.7N.ON1+O !e categorically held)
Moreover7 9ection 1(25"6 of R.(. No. H1#*7 as amended7 is not
"inding on the Court. :t has "een repeatedly emphasiBed that
the determination of 3ust compensation in eminent domain
cases is a 3udicial function and that any valuation for 3ust
compensation laid do!n in the statutes may serve only as a
guiding principle or one of the factors in determining 3ust
compensation "ut it may not su"stitute the court8s o!n
3udgment as to !hat amount should "e a!arded and ho! to
arrive at such amount. 5Citations omitted.6
&he determination of 3ust compensation in e4propriation cases
is a function addressed to the discretion of the courts7 and may
not "e usurped "y any other "ranch or oIcial of the
government.N1ON1*O &his 3udicial function has constitutional
raison d8PtreJ (rticle ::: of the #F$ Constitution mandates that
no private property shall "e ta'en for pu"lic use !ithout
payment of 3ust compensation. :n National Po!er Corporation v.
9anta Loro Eda. de Capin7 et al.7N+ON1HO !e noted !ith approval
the dis,uisition of the C( in this matter)
&he Nherein petitionerO vehemently insists that its Charter
N9ection 1( 5"6 of R.(. H1#*O o"liges it to pay only a ma4imum
of %Q of the mar'et value declared "y the o!ner or
administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property7 or
such mar'et value as determined "y the assessor7 !hichever is
lo!er. &o uphold such a contention !ould not only interfere !ith
a 3udicial function "ut !ould also render as useless the
protection guaranteed "y our Constitution in 9ection #7 (rticle :::
of our Constitution that no private property shall "e ta'en for
pu"lic use !ithout payment of 3ust compensation.