RELOVA V.

LAVAREZ- EASEMENT AND SERVITUDE
The enjoyment of the plaintiff of an easement for the maintenance of an irrigation aqueduct and a dam on the lands of defendant for a period of more than 20 years confers title thereto upon the plaintiff by virtue of prescription and burdens the lands of the defendants with a corresponding servitude.

plaintiff. At the time when the dam was destroyed the plaintiff had some five cavanes of land prepared to plant rice, but because of the escape of the water resulting from the destruction of the dam he was unable to raise his crop. Defendants claim that the plaintiff is not the owner of any lands watered by the aqueduct of the class known as padagat (rice lands planted in May). It was also alleged that the plaintiff suffered no damage by the destruction of the dam, because all the lands of plaintiff which are cultivated with the aid of water from the aqueduct are of the class known as binanbang (rice lands planted in August or September), and the

FACTS:

destruction of the dam in May and the consequent failure of water in the aqueduct at that period did not, and could not, damage the plaintiff or interfere with the proper cultivation of his lands.

The plaintiff is the owner of a tract of rice land which is cultivated with the aid of water brought from a river through an aqueduct which passes over the land of the defendants. This was by virtue of an easement the use of which had been with the plaintiff for more than thirty years. On the land of the defendants there was a dam with a small gate or aperture in its face which was used to control the flow of the water in the aqueduct, by permitting a greater or less quantity to escape in a drainage ditch, also on the land of the defendants.

Lastly, defendants say that that the evidence on record does not establish the existence of the servitude in the lands of the defendants in favor of the lands of the plaintiff landowner for the maintenance of the aqueduct and dam in question.

ISSUE:

One of the defendants completely destroyed the dam and let all the water escape by the drainage ditch, so that none flowed on the land of the

Whether or not there was a valid servitude between the parties.

HELD:

Save for the issue on the existence of the servitude, all other allegations of defendants were outrightly disregarded as they were clearly unmeritorious in light of the findings of fact. However, the Court ruled that there was a valid easement in light of the fact that the aqueduct and the dam had been in existence for more than 30 years, during which time the plaintif had exercised its use. It was alleged that no benefit was granted to the plaintiff since his (plaintiff's) land is situated higher than defendants' land. Moreover, even if defendants had the right to open the gates of the dam to prevent destructive overflow upon their land, this does not give them the right to stop the flow of water altogether.

EASEMENT AND SERVITUDES Servitudes are merely accessories to the tenement of which they form part. it (along with other residents of neighboring estates) made use of the above private alley and maintained and contributed to its upkeep. and the easement pertains to persons without a dominant estate. . and no obstructions whatsoever shall be placed thereon. and allow the City to lay pipes for sewer and drainage purposes. is the owner of a parcel of land located in Ermita. when. the petitioner commenced suit for injunction FACTS: against the private respondent.SOLID MANILA CORP. 1984. VS. which presupposes ownership. and (7) that the owner of the lot on which the alley has been constructed shall allow the public to use the same. Solid Manila Corp. The same lies in the vicinity of another parcel registered under Bio Hong Trading whose title came from a prior owner. 900 sqm of the lot was reserved as an easement of way. the public at large. to have the gates removed and to allow full access to the easement. in this case.. is not possible. there is no "owner of a dominant tenement" to speak of. BIO HONG TRADING CO.) The petitioner claims that ever since. times. On December 6. until sometime in 1983. they cannot be alienated from the tenement or mortgaged separately. and over its protests. In the deed of sale between Bio Hong and the vendor. the private respondent constructed steel gates that precluded unhampered use. The construction of the private alley was annotated on Bio Hong’s title stating among other things "(6) That the alley shall remain open at all The trial court ordered Bi Hong to open the gates but the latter argued that the easement has been extinguished by merger in the same person of the dominant and servient estates upon the purchase of the property from its former owner. and shall not act (sic) for any indemnity for the use thereof” Note: In a personal servitude. and even if they are possessed of a separate juridical existence. (Merger.

and that in any event. Merger requires full ownership of both 1) Whether or not easements may be alienated (sold) from the tenement or mortgaged separately 2) Whether or not the easement had been extinguished by merger. a merger ISSUE: exists when ownership of the dominant and servient estates is consolidated in the same person. the intent of the parties was to retain the "alley" as an easement notwithstanding the sale. and that since the private respondent had acquired title to the property. or of one or more persons to whom the . Thus. estates. According to the Civil Code. It was included but there was a limitation on its use-the easement. because as a servitude. Solid went to the SC alleging that the very deed of sale executed between the Bio Hong and the previous owner of the property "excluded" the alley in question. it did not acquire the right to close that alley or otherwise put up obstructions thereon and thus prevent the public from using it. Note that The servitude in question is a personal servitude (established for the benefit of a community. As a mere right of way.] supposed to be open to the public. 2) No genuine merger took place as a consequence of the sale in favor of the private respondent corporation. the alley is [While the case was pending. which it granted subject to the final outcome of the prior case. HELD: NO to both 1) The sale included the alley. Bio Hong asked the RTC to cancel the annotation in question. The court rejected Solid’s contention that the alley was not included in the sale. 617) Even though Bio Hong acquired ownership over the property –– including the disputed alley –– as a result of the conveyance. (Art.CA reversed holding that an easement is a mere limitation on ownership and that it does not impair the private respondent's title. "merger" brought about an extinguishment of the easement. it cannot be separated from the tenement and maintain an independent existence.

and the easement pertains to persons without a dominant estate. . in this case. Thus.encumbered estate does not belong). the public at large. In a personal servitude. there is therefore no "owner of a dominant tenement" to speak of. merger could not have been possible.

FACTS: RULING: NO. Respondents could have not acquired the easement by prescription because they have not fulfilled this requirement. et al. Art538’s requirement is a “formal act” and not just any verbal or written act. Notarial prohibition is required to start the running of prescription. Also Registration of the Immovable without the registration of the easement extinguishes the easement. et al are the owners of the building standing on their lot with windows overlooking the adjacent lot. Respondents have claimed that they had acquired by prescription an enforceable easement of light and view arising from a verbal prohibition to obstruct such view and light. alleged to have been made upon petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest as owner of the adjoining lot. both of which lots being covered by Torrens titles. Prescription for a negative easement only begins when there is a notarial prohibition by the dominant estate.. The respondents Javier. JAVIER. the properties were registered under the Torrens system without any annotation or registration of the said easement.CID VS. had acquired by prescription an enforceable easement of light and view arising from a verbal prohibition to obstruct such view and light. ISSUES: . The easement in dispute here is an easement of light and view.NOTARIAL PROHIBITION Whether or not the respondents Irene P. the easement no longer exists because Note: easement of light and view is continuous and apparent so it is subject to prescription. Javier. The lower courts have ruled in their favor. Even assuming they have acquired it. “Formal act” contemplated in art538 in the OLD Civil Code pertains to an instrument acknowledged before a notary public. which is a negative easement. owners of a building standing on their lot with windows overlooking the adjacent lot.

The fact that the defendant has not covered the windows of the apellant/ plaintiff does not necessarily imply the recognition of the acquisitive prescription of the alleged easement as this might just be a result of a mere tolerance on the part of the defendant. what is needed in this situation is a formal act through a notarial prohibition so that prescriptive period will start. Defendant however claims that there should be a formal act prohibiting them from doing a certain act to trigger the prescriptive period. The easement here is the (possible) prohibition of creating any improvements on the property of the defendants (negative easement) that may impede or limit the use of the window.CORTES VS. ISSUE: Plaintiffs asked for a rehearing but was again denied! Plaintiff mentions .NEGATIVE EASEMENT Whether or not plaintiffs have acquired the easement through prescription? A Notarial prohibition is required to start the running of prescription in a negative easement. It has been established that the plaintiffs hasn’t done any formal act prohibiting the owner of the house of the adjacent house prohibiting them to make any improvements. Plaintiff’s wife has certain windows on her property which open on the adjacent lot. RULING: NO. Thus. In fact. Easement disputed here is the easement of light and view. The Court clarified that mere act of opening one own’s window is an act FACTS: of dominion not of easement. Plaintiff claims that period of prescription started when those windows were made and acknowledge by the owner of the adjacent lot. plaintiff is totally wrong in saying that prescription for the easement starts to kick in when the window was made and acknowledge by the adjacent owner. YU-TIBO.

The court says that the plaintiffs are obviously confused between the right exercised by owners and the rights provided in easements. or just projitiendi and jus spillitiendi.about their windows and watersheds to be apparent easements. .

EASEMENTS OF RIGHT OF WAY highway once acquired by the government through donation.ABELLANA VS. Cebu. 620 of the Civil Code provides that only continuous and apparent easements may be acquired by prescription. CA reversed. They sued to establish an easement of a right of way over a subdivision road. Art. RTC found for the petitioners. The easement of a right of way cannot be considered continuous because its use is at intervals and is dependent on the acts of man. purchase or expropriation. averring that road lots in subdivisions are private property and may only be used as a public . which they claim they’ve acquired through prescription since their ancestors have been using these since time immemorial. Easements of right of way may not be acquired by prescription because it is not a continuous easement. HELD: No. They pray that the concrete wall surrounding the village be taken down to allow easy access to the public highway. CA. ISSUE: Whether or not the easement of a right of way may be acquired by prescription? FACTS: Petitioners are owners of a parcel of land on the NW side of Nonoc Subdivision.

but ISSUE: . specially by the public. 190. at least to the writer of this opinion. Art. Section 41 thereof. which they have been using for more than 20 years. On May 1953. One year after. and there would appear to be no valid reason. intimidation. Act No. at least since the introduction into this jurisdiction of the special law on prescription through the Old Code of Civil Procedure. planted wooden posts and fenced with barbed wires the road. Said law. HELD: No. closing their right of way from their house to Igualdad St. blocking their usual path to the marketplace. why the continued use of a path or a road or right of way by the party. Petitioners’ parcel of land was connected to the Naga Market Place and Igualdad St. makes no distinction as to the real rights which are subject to prescription. the owners (respondents) of the land where the easement was situated. Minority Opinion (including the ponente): Easements of right of way may already be acquired by prescription. 620 of the CC provides that only continuous and apparent easements may be acquired by prescription. The easement of a right of way cannot FACTS: be considered continuous because its use is at intervals and is dependent on the acts of man. respondents built a chapel right in the middle of the road. by an easement of a right of way through the land of the Respondents. and threats. ROCO. for ten years or more. however.RONQUILLO VS. not by mere tolerance of the owner of the land. and Naga public market. particularly. by means of force.EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY Whether or not the easement of a right of way may be acquired by prescription? Easements of right of way may not be acquired by prescription because it is not a continuous easement.

provided it can be shown that the servitude was actual." . Jur. but simply the exercise of the right more or less frequently according to the nature of the use. 972) "It is submitted that under Act No. open. public. “The uninterrupted and continuous enjoyment of a right of way necessary to constitute adverse possession does not require the use thereof every day for the statutory period. even discontinuous servitudes can be acquired by prescription. under a claim of title exclusive of any other right and adverse to all other claimants'. 190.” (17 Am. cannot give said party a vested right to such right of way through prescription.through adverse use of it. continuous.

the law on easement was already integrated into the Spanish Law and in fact.EASEMENT RULING: FACTS: 1. 624 is acquisition by title. Amor failed to prove that the death of the testator occurred before the effectivity of the Old Civil Code. 2. In any case. had been ISSUE: established by Jurisprudence. Whether or not the Civil Code may be applied . Under Art. The facts show that it happened after the effectivity of the said code so the law on easement is already applicable. 2. FLORENTINO. The problem is it will shut off the light and air that come in through the window of the adjacent house owned by Jose. Amor is prohibitied from constructing the warehouse above the level of the window. 624. Maria sold the warehouse to Amor. an easement is established. Whether or not there is an easement prohibiting Amor from doing said construction. Hence the latter files for prohibition claiming there is a negative easement prohibiting Amor from constructing any structure at any height that would block the window. since the death of testator was before the Civil Code took effect. Therefore. By a will. she transferred the house to Jose Florentino and the warehouse to Maria Florentino. Amor then demolished the old warehouse in order to build a new 2-storey structure. The Cortez case cannot be invoked by Amor because it involved acquisition by prescription.AMOR V. Easement are established by law or by will of the owners or by title. When the estate is subsequently owned by two different persons and the “service” (it cannot be an easement before the transfer) is not revoked in the title nor removed. 1. there is title by the doctrine of apparent sign. even if we assume Amor’s supposition. Yes. Moreover. Art. Maria Florentino owned a house and a camarin (warehouse). Amor counters that there is no easement. the rules on easement do not apply.

Moreover.DISSENTING OPINION OF OZAETA. buildings are side to side with each other. There was no provision similar to the doctrine of apparent sign. 3) There is no doctrine established by the Spanish Tribunal regarding the doctrine. 1) The Majority opinio committed a travesty on justice when it ignored the evidence produced by Amor that the testator’s death occurred before the effectivity of the Code. . 4) In this modern age of flourescent lights and air conditioning devices. the law on easement will not apply. the easement of light and view would be obsolete and deterrent to economic progress especially when in the cities. the Spanish Law and the Partidas provided for only three ways of acquiring easements: 1) contract 2) testament 3) prescription. 2) Hence.

.. LIGHT AND VIEW AND "ALTIUS NON TOLLENDI". acquisition of easement by title. — The easement of light and view and easement not to build higher (altius non tollendi) go together because an easement of light and view requires that the owner of the servient estate shall not build to a height that will obstruct the window. While an easement of light and view is positive. — The requisite of an easement as required by article 530 of the Civil Code is that there must be two proprietors — one. and in the contract nothing is said . NOBODY CAN HAVE AN EASEMENT OVER HIS OWN PROPERTY. EASEMENT ENJOYED BY FORMER OWNER SUBSISTS AFTER DIVISION OF ESTATE IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRACT TO THE CONTRARY. ID. WHAT CHARACTERIZES ITS EXISTENCE. ID. YU-TIBO (2 PHIL. — The easement is not created till the division of the property. under article 541 of the Civil Code. ID. 1. REQUIREMENT UPON THE OWNER OF SERVIENT ESTATE. or its equivalent. as it were.. Yu-Tibo (2 Phil. inasmuch as a predial or real easement is one of the rights in another's property. while in the present case the question is the 2.. ID... 29). NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE EASEMENTS. 29). 7. 3. no such act is necessary in the present case because of the existence of the apparent sign which is a sufficient title in itself to create the easement. DISTINGUISHED. — According to article 536.. ID. — Under article 541 of the Civil Code. Acquisition of easements is first by title or its equivalent and secondly by prescription.AMOR V FLORENTINO 4.. — The present case is distinguished from that of the case of Cortes vs. 5. REQUISITE OF EASEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 530 OF CIVIL CODE. WHEN AN EASEMENT IS DEEMED CREATED. ID. — When an estate is divided between different persons. that of altius non tollendi negative. While a formal prohibition was necessary in the former case in order to start the period of prescription. Civil Code. of the dominant estate and another. They are. of the servient estate. THE PRESENT CASE AND THAT OF CORTES vs. easements are established by law or by will of the owners. the two sides of the same coin. 6. MODES OF ESTABLISHING AND ACQUIRING EASEMENTS. nemini sua res servit. or jura in re aliena and nobody can have an SYLLABUS easement over his own property. EASEMENTS. that in the latter it involved acquisition of easement by prescription. the visible and permanent sign of an easement is the title that characterizes its existence.

continuous and apparent easements may be acquired by prescription for 20 years. ID. Ilocos Sur. EASEMENTS EXIST SIDE BY SIDE WITH OWNERSHIP. Through these windows the house receives light and air from the 9. father of the other respondents. lot and the warehouse thereon to the petitioner. The house had and still has.about a mode of enjoyment different from that used by the original owner thereof. the testatrix also devised the warehouse and the lot where it is situated to Maria Encarnacion Florentino. On July 14. — Absolute and unlimited dominion is unthinkable because it would destroy and defeat itself. one of the respondents herein. petitioner destroyed the old warehouse and started to build instead a two-story house. Maria Encarnacion Florentino sold her 10. — Purchasers of lands burdened with apparent easements do not enjoy the rights of third persons who acquire property. and 20 years between absentees. and a fourth one on the ground floor. created by law or established by will of the parties. FACTS: It appears that over 50 years ago. ID. respondents filed an action to prohibit petitioner herein from building higher than the original structure and from executing any work which would shut off . and to Jose Florentino. Maria Florentino. must perforce exist side by side with ownership. inasmuch as proper enjoyment or property requires mutual service and forbearance among the adjoining estates. though the burden is not recorded. — The prescriptive period under the Partidas was 10 years between persons who were present. ID.. Under sections 40 and 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (4 Manresa. ID. the necessary easements for said mode of enjoyment are understood to be subsisting. the easement in question would also have to be upheld. LAW OF EASEMENT PRIOR TO CIVIL CODE IS THE SAME AS IN THE LATTER.. Maria Florentino owned a house and a camarin or warehouse in Vigan. On September 6.. PRESCRIPTIVE LAWS OF EASEMENT BEFORE AND AFTER THE CIVIL CODE. on the north side. On March 1st of that year. It is thus that easements. devising the house and the land on which it is situated to Gabriel Florentino. whether 8. and. the period is 10 years.. — The same principle enunciated in article 541 of the Spanish Civil Code was already an integral part of the Spanish law before the promulgation of the Civil Code in 1889. 11. In January. three windows on the upper story. Upon the death of the testatrix in 1892. RIGHTS OF PURCHASERS OF LAND BURDENED WITH APPARENT EASEMENTS. Severo Amor. Maria Florentino made a will. 1911.) According to article 537 of the Civil Code. 1938. In said will. the deed of sale stating that the vendor had inherited the property from her aunt. 1885. 605. even if the case should be governed by the Spanish law prior to the Civil Code. nothing was said or done by the devisees in regard to the windows in question. lot where the camarin stands. therefore.

Maria Florentino. Maria Encarnacion Florentino. "it refers to those negative easements which are the result and consequence of others that are positive. 1 Under the Partidas. as it were. constituted. or not to construct. such as the easement not to build higher. there is an implied contract between them that the easements in question should be constituted. Upon the establishment of that easement of light and view. the time for the commencement of prescription for negative easements. there is an implied contract between them that the easements in question should be constituted. and since the parties litigant herein are entitled to have . as a title so that the easement will continue actively and passively. the two sides of the same coin. of making the existence of the apparent sign equivalent to a title. when nothing to the contrary is said or done by the two owners. While an easement of light and view is positive. not having objected to the existence of the windows. the contrary is stated in the deed of alienation of either of them. is sound and correct. the petitioner should win. or rather in the absence of an express provision therein similar to article 541. but none in the case for the petitioner. Clemente de Diego states that when article 538 speaks of If we do not apply article 541 of the Civil Code — and we cannot apply it because Maria Florentino died in 1885 — there is really a gap in the case for the respondents. which is indispensable to the easement of light. These two easements necessarily go together because an easement of light and view requires that the owner of the servient estate shall not build to a height that will obstruct the window. or the sign is made to disappear before the instrument is executed. if one of them is alienated. the four windows under consideration. to wit. the concomitant and concurrent easement of altius non tollendi was also ISSUE/HELD: whether or not Article 541 applies to a division of property by succession." It will thus be seen that under article 541 the existence of the apparent sign in the instant case. 541. unless at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided. so the court denied the writ of preliminary injunction. They are. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates. that of altius non tollendi is negative. The Court of First Instance found on the 15th of the same month that the construction of the new house had almost been completed. shall be considered." "Art. AFFIRMATIVE. had for all legal purposes the same character and effect as a title of acquisition of the easement of light and view by the respondents upon the death of the original owner. established by the proprietor of both. the heir of the camarin and its lot. RATIO DICIDENDI: because as it happens in this case.the light and air that had for many years been received through the four windows referred to. The theory of article 541.

the windows on respondents' house were visible. — When Maria Encarnacion Florentino. which service became a true easement upon her death. But petitioner continued the construction. implied. so that when the Court of First Instance was ready to pass upon the preliminary injunction. therefore. cannot complain if he is now ordered to tear down part of the new structure so as not to shut off the light from respondents' windows. It was petitioner's duty to inquire into the significance of those windows. Maria Encarnacion Florentino. Sanchez Roman calls such apparent sign under article 541 "supletoria del titulo constitutivo de la servidumbre. (1) a deed of recognition by the owner of the servient estate. the Court should abstain from so doing as a matter of law and justice. (2) a final judgment. It is not just to allow Maria Encarnacion Florentino or her successor in interest to repudiate her own undertaking.their case decided in accordance with the pre-Civil Code legislation in force in the Philippines as provided in the transitory provisions. and since to "fill the gap" would prejudice him and unduly favor the respondents. This easement is therefore a burden which Maria Encarnacion Florentino and her successor in interest willingly accepted. That burden consisted of the service in fact during the lifetime of the original owner. Recapitulating. According to Article 536. the work had almost been finished. as to the modes of establishing and acquiring easements. When petitioner bought this lot from the original coheir. namely. They cannot now murmur against any inconvenience consequent upon their own agreement. Having failed to do so. Petitioner. and (3) an apparent sign between two estates. the respondents filed an action to stop the work. First. it is true. easements are established by law or by will of the owners. accepted the camarin and the lot. for these reasons: VI . as one of of the devisees. we believe the easement of light and view has been established in favor of the property of respondents. which is the case of article 541." During the construction of the new house by the petitioner. she could not in fairness receive the benefit without assuming the burden of the legacy. but binding nevertheless. Acquisition of easements is first by title or its equivalent and secondly by prescription. since that legislation without any "gap-filling" is in favor of the petitioner. standpoint of justice and public policy he cannot now question the easement against the property which he purchased. What acts take the place of title? They are mentioned in Articles 540 and 541. established by the owner of both.

and therefore.See more at: http://studentsofsocrates. even if the instant case should be governed by the Spanish law prior to the Civil Code.dpuf . according to a finding of fact of the Court of Appeals. that Maria Florentino died in 1885. Article 541 of the Civil Code is applicable to this case.html#sthash. 3. The easement under review has been acquired by respondents through prescription. Justice and public policy are on the side of the respondents. Maria Florentino having died in 1892.blogspot. 2. arguendo. which we cannot review. nevertheless the same principle embodied in article 541 of the Civil Code was already an integral part of the Spanish law before the promulgation of the Civil Code in 1889. 5.NM3xEGvb. the easement in question would also have to be upheld. The petitioner was not an innocent purchaser. 4. Granting. as he was in duty bound to inquire into the significance of the windows.com/2010/10/amor-vflorentino.1. .

there existed on the aforementioned wall of the FACTS: house.EASEMENT such that the wall of the house contructed on the first estate extends to the wall of the warehouse on the second estate. Art. Again. there being no provision in the deed of sale that the easement of light and view will not be established. and at the time of the sale of the first estate. ISSUE: Whether or not an easement was established RULING: Yes. windows which serve as passages for light and view. A third portion with a warehouse was sold to Gargantos. Another lot with a house constituted thereon was sold to Tan Yanon(PR). doors. Sanz was the previous owner of a land which he subdivided into several lots. The problem arose when latter asked from the Municipality for a permit to demolish the warehouse in order to construct a higher one. Yan Yung opposed for it would block his window and impair his right of loght and view. One lot was sold to Tengtio. 624 provides that when two adjoining estates were formerly owned by one person who introduced improvements on both .GARGANTOS V. the apparent sign of easement between the two estates is established as a title. CA. whol sold to Uy Veza.

. Inc. 543 is that in extending the line or repairing or using the same. Later on. made other milling contracts identical to HELD: NO ISSUE: Whether or not the easement of way established was restricted to transporting only sugar cane from the hacienda owners’ lands (the SC also made 1 judgment for all the 3 cases) The contract entered into by each of the hacienda owners contained a . 2 years after. THE NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO. Occidental Negros. INC.EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY the first one with the North Negros Sugar. so the North Negros made other milling contracts What is prohibited by Art. Thus the appeal to the SC. the current petitioners. Occidental Negros. Osorio’s rights and interests were acquired by the North Negros Sugar Co.VALDERRAMA V.. This prompted Valderrama et.. Catalino Valderrama. Co. The CFI entered 1 single judgment for all of them. however. al to each file a complaint against North Negros. a larger area of land is occupied or excavations or materials deposited are outside the area occupied not by causing wagons to pass just because of a change of ownership of the objects being transported. could not furnish the central sufficient cane for milling as required by its capacity. al. Emilio Rodriguez. FACTS: Several hacienda owners in Manapla. entered into a milling contract with Miguel Osorio wherein the latter would build a sugar central of a minimum capacity of 300 tons for the milling and grinding of all the sugar cane to be grown by the hacienda owners who in turn would furnish the central with all the cane they might produce in their estates for 30 years from the execution of the contract. al’s favor finding that North Negros had no right to pass through the lands of the hacienda owners for the transportation of sugar cane not grown from their lands. ruling in Valderrama et. Santos Urra et.. with the various hacienda owners of Cadiz. Inc. The hacienda owners.

the remaining period so the contention that it should be limited to the canes produced by the owners has no basis. Transporting cane from Cadiz also does not make it more burdensome since what is prohibited in Art. This does not happen in this case when the . Also the period of the easement is longer than the period of the milling contracts. so even if the owners no longer desire to furnish the central canes for milling. since it continues to occupy the same area and the encumbrance is still the same regardless of the number of times it passes through the estates.clause that granted the North Negros an easement of way 7 meters wide for the period of 50 years upon their properties for the construction of a railroad. North Negros transports sugar cane from Cadiz. it is contrary to the nature of the contract that it is only limited to canes produced by the servient estates since it is a well settled rule that things serve their owner by reason of ownership and not by reason of easement. apparent. The owners also cannot limit its use for there is nothing in the contract prohibiting the central from obtaining other sources. The owners allege ambiguity since it could permit the transportation of sugar cane which they did not produce which is contrary to their intent but the SC held that it is clear that the easement was established for the benefit of all producers and of the corporation as it is the intent of the milling contract. 543 of the CC is that in extending the road or in repairing it. crossing the servient estates. it should occupy a greater area or deposit excavations outside the granted 7 meters. continuous easement of way in favor of the corporation. the North Negros still has the right to the easement for Since the easement is a voluntary.

School is located. Sr... thus he instituted a complaint for ISSUE: Whether or not an easement was established in favor of the school property RULING: YES A positive easement of water-right-of-way was constituted on the property of Florete as the servient estate in favor of the L. When a positive easement is constituted. Borres Elem. This prompted the school and barangay officials to complain to higher authorities about the closure of the canal. There existed a main canal from the Iloilo River which passes through the Marsal property and thru a canal that traverses the school property going towards Lot 2344.JAVELLANA V. This closure caused flooding in the premises of the school and its vicinity because the canal serves as outlet of rain or flood water that empties into the river. and Marcelino Florete. As a positive easement.POSITIVE EASEMENT recovery of damages for allegedly denying his access to the use of the canal to his property. Marsal & Co. Inc. Florete had no right to terminate the use of the . When Florete was about to bury a pipe in lieu of an open canal. the servient owner is prevented from impairing the use of such by the dominant estate. closed the dike entrance and later on demolished the portions of the main dike connecting the main canal to the canal running thru the school grounds. is the present owner of the land adjoining the Iloilo River up to the adjacent lot where the L. he was prevented from doing so by the district supervisor. Javellana. The RTC ruled in favor of Javellana thus Florete appealed to the IAC which reversed the decision thus the case at bar. FACTS: Marsal & Co. Borres Elementary School and the nearby lands as dominant estates since it has been in continuous use for no less than 15 years by the school fishpond as well as by the nearby adjacent lands. IAC.

it may be charged at his expense. provided he offers another place or manner equally convenient and in such a way that no injury is caused thereby to the owner of the dominant estate or to those who may have a right to the use of the easement. it is fresh and clean since the tide changes from the Iloilo River while the fishpond is stagnant and polluted > before the closure of the dikes. the use of the servitude. the same should become very inconvenient to the owner of the servient estate. the other when he was still single . or should prevent him from making any important works.canal without violating Art. in the production of salt > the canal is a source of salt water.” > Canal is used by residents for salt-making using plastic bags. which is in competition with Marsal & Co. Nevertheless if by reason of the place originally assigned or of the manner established for the use of the easement. there were no floods in the vicinity > tube to be buried: 10-inch rubber tube > canal: o for the 1st 100 meters = 3 meters wide o 200 meters = 2 meters > depth of canal: o high tide or rainy season = main canal = ½ meter. repairs or improvements thereon. 1 when he was still a child. who while picking shells fell into the canal > 2 witnesses took a bath in the canal. canal that When Florete closed the entrance of the canal and demolished portions of the main dike it impaired the use of the servitude by the dominant estates. 629 of the CC which provides that “The owner of the servient estate cannot impair. in any manner whatsoever. traverses school = 2 meters o ordinary days = no water > Florete only caused the canal to be deeper Additional Facts: > One witness almost drowned > One witness saved a woman.

. An easement of way was annotated in the certificates of title. the remaining half of the property was sold to Herras who then closed and walled the part of land serving as easement of way. CA 25 SCRA 145 FACTS: Hendrick was the owner of a property which half of it was sold to Recto. the easement persists. Absence of anything that would show mutual agreement to extinguish the easement. Subsequently. HELD: The easement is perpetual in character and was annotated in all the certificates of title.BENEDICTO V.

He also agreed that should be decide to sell Lot B he would sell it to Tañedo. However. Cardenas admitted that he had agreed to sell the lot to pet and claimed An easement continues by operation of law. use of the easement is continued by operation of law as provided in Art 624 because no abolishment or extinguishment was provided in the deed of absolute sale. bodega and a septic tank for common use of the occupants of the two lots. house. On the contrary. Alienation of the D and S estates to different persons is not a ground for extinguishment of easements absent a statement extinguishing it. Cardenas sold Lot A and mortgaged Lot B to Eduardo Tañedo (pet). Nor did Cardenas stop the use of .EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENT Tañedo filed an action for legal redemption and damages against resps. by way of cross claim against spouses Sim that the Deed of Sale he had executed was only intended as an equitable mortgage. He constructed an apartment bldg in Lot A and in Lot B he constructed an apartment. RTC dismissed the complaint and the cross claim.TAÑEDO V BERNAD. FACTS: ISSUE: Antonio Cardenas (resp) is the original owner of 2 parcels of land (7501-A and 7501-B). Whether or not the right to continue to use the septic tank ceased upon the subdivision of the land and its subsequent sale to different owners. RULING: NO. He also asked Tañnedo to remove that portion of his building encroaching Lot B. Sim blocked the sewage pipe connecting the building on Lot A to the septic tank. The alienation of the dominant and servient estates to different persons is not one of the grounds for the extinguishment of an easement. Cardenas sold Lot B to Spouses Sim (resp).

.the drain pipe and septic tanks before he sold the lots. Accordingly. the use of the servitude. the spouses Sim cannot impair. in any manner.

ALCANTARA V. . RITA 372 SCRA 364 FACTS: Petitioners filed a case for alleged violations of their right of first refusal under PD1517. HELD: Where a person is allowed to construct his house on the land of another to facilitate gathering of fruits. this would be in the nature of a personal easement. claiming to be urban lessees or tenants. The complaint was dismissed from the finding that they are not lessees.