You are on page 1of 11

Easements; Right of Way; Requisites (1996) David is the owner of the subdivision in Sta.

Rosa, Laguna, without an access to the highway. When he applied for a license to establish the subdivision, David represented that he will purchase a rice field located between his land and the highway, and develop it into an access road. But. when the license was already granted, he did not bother to buy the rice field, which remains unutilized until the present. Instead, he chose to connect his subdivision with the neighboring subdivision of Nestor, which has an access to the highway. Nestor allowed him to do this, pending negotiations on the compensation to be paid. When they failed to arrive at an agreement, Nestor built a wall across the road connecting with David's subdivision. David filed a complaint in court, for the establishment of an easement of right of way through the subdivision of Nestor which he claims to be the most adequate and practical outlet to the highway. 1) What are the requisites for the establishment of a compulsory easement of a right of way? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Art, 649, NCC. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is

entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the property indemnity. Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate. In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage cause by such encumbrance. This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts. (564a). The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest (Art. 650, NCC: Vda. de Baltazar v. CA. 245 SCRA 333} ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The requisites for a compulsory easement of right of way are: (a) the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and is without an adequate outlet to a public street or highway; (b) proper indemnity must be paid; (c) the isolation must not be due to the acts of the owner of the

dominant estate; and (d) the right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate and, insofar as extinguished by the registration of the servient estate. However, this provision has been suppressed in Section 44, PD No. 1529. In other words, the registration of the servient estate did not operate to cut-off or extinguish the right of way. Therefore, the complaint for the cancellation of the right of way should be dismissed. Easements; Right of Way; Requisites (1996) David is the owner of the subdivision in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, without an access to the highway. When he applied for a license to establish the subdivision, David represented that he will purchase a rice field located between his land and the highway, and develop it into an access road. But. when the license was already granted, he did not bother to buy the rice field, which remains unutilized until the present. Instead, he chose to connect his subdivision with the neighboring subdivision of Nestor, which has an access to the highway. Nestor allowed him to do this, pending negotiations on the compensation to be paid. When they failed to arrive at an agreement, Nestor built a wall across the road connecting with David's subdivision. David filed a complaint in court, for the establishment of an easement of right of way through the subdivision of Nestor which he claims to be the most adequate and practical outlet to the

highway. 1) What are the requisites for the establishment of a compulsory easement of a right of way? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Art, 649, NCC. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the property indemnity. Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate. In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage cause by such encumbrance. This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts. (564a). The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the

dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest (Art. 650, NCC: Vda. de Baltazar v. CA. 245 SCRA 333} ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The requisites for a compulsory easement of right of way are: (a) the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and is without an adequate outlet to a public street or highway; (b) proper indemnity must be paid; (c) the isolation must not be due to the acts of the owner of the dominant estate; and (d) the right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate and, insofar as is consistent with this rule, where the distance to the street or highway is shortest. 2) Is David entitled to a right of way in this case? Why or why not? SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, David is not entitled to the right of way being claimed. The isolation of his subdivision was due to his own act or omission because he did not develop into an access road the rice field which he was supposed to purchase according to his own representation when he applied for a license to establish the subdivision (Floro us. Llenado, 244 SCRA713)

Hidden Treasures (1997) Marcelino, a treasure hunter as just a hobby, has found a map which appears to indicate the location of hidden

treasure. He has an idea of the land where the treasure might possibly be found. Upon inquiry, Marcelino learns that the owner of the land, Leopoldo, is a permanent resident of Canada, Nobody, however, could give him Leopoldo's exact address. Ultimately, anyway, he enters the land and conducts a search. He succeeds. Leopoldo learning of Marcelino's "find", seeks to recover the treasure from Marcelino but the latter is not willing to part with it. Failing to reach an agreement, Leopoldo sues Marcelino for the recovery of the property. Marcelino contests the action. How would you decide the case? SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would decide in favor of Marcelino since he is considered a finder by chance of the hidden treasure, hence, he is entitled to one-half (1/2) of the hidden treasure. While Marcelino may have had the intention to look for the hidden treasure, still he is a finder by chance since it is enough that he tried to look for it. By chance in the law does not mean sheer luck such that the finder should have no intention at all to look for the treasure. By chance means good luck, implying that one who intentionally looks for the treasure is embraced in the provision. The reason is that it is extremely difficult to find hidden treasure without looking for it deliberately.

Marcelino is not a trespasser since there is no prohibition for him to enter the premises, hence, he is entitled to half of the treasure. ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS: 1. Marcelino did not find the treasure by chance because he had a map, he knew the location of the hidden treasure and he intentionally looked for the treasure, hence, he is not entitled to any part of the treasure. 2. Marcelino appears to be a trespasser and although there may be a question of whether he found it by chance or not, as he has found the hidden treasure by means of a treasure map, he will not be entitled to a finder's share. The hidden treasure shall belong to the owner. 3. The main rule is that hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building or other property on which it is found. If it is found by chance by a third person and he is not a trespasser, he is entitled to one-half (1/2). If he is a trespasser, he loses everything

Property; Real vs. Personal Property (1997) Pedro is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Malolos, Bulacan. In 1973, he mortgaged the land to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan of P100.000.00. For Pedro's failure to pay the loan, the PNB foreclosed on the mortgage in 1980, and the land was sold

at public auction to PNB for being the highest bidder. PNB secured title thereto in 1987. In the meanwhile, Pedro, who was still in possession of the land, constructed a warehouse on the property. In 1988, the PNB sold the land to Pablo, the Deed of Sale was amended in 1989 to include the warehouse. Pedro, claiming ownership of the warehouse, files a complaint to annul the amended Deed of Sale before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, where he resides, against both the PNB and Pablo. The PNB filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue contending that the warehouse is real property under Article 415(1) of the Civil Code and therefore the action should have instead been filed in Malolos, Bulacan. Pedro claims otherwise. The question arose as to whether the warehouse should be considered as real or as personal property

If consulted, what would your legal advice be? SUGGESTED ANSWER: The warehouse which is a construction adhered to the soil is an immovable by nature under Art. 415 (1) and the proper venue of any case to recover ownership of the same, which is what the purpose of the complaint to annul the amended Deed of Sale amounts to, should be the place where the property is located, or the RTC of Bulacan.

ADDITIONAL ANSWERS: 1. Buildings are always immovable property, and even in the instances where the parties to a contract seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise does it change its character as immovable property. A building is an immovable even if not erected by the owner of the land. The only criterion is union or incorporation with the soil. (Ladera vs. Hodges (CA) 48 O.G. 4374) (Reyes and Puno, Outline of Philippine Civil Law, Vol. 2. p.7) 2. The warehouse built by Pedro on the mortgaged property is real property within the context of Article 415 of the New Civil Code, although it was built by Pedro after the foreclosure sale without the knowledge and consent of the new owner which makes him a builder in bad faith, this does not alter the character of the warehouse as a real property by incorporation. It is a structure which cannot be removed without causing injury to the land. So, my advice to Pedro is to file the case with the RTC of Bulacan, the situs of the property, (Note: If the examinee does not mention that the structure was built by a builder in bad faith, it should be given full credit)

Usufruct (1997)

On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of a building, granted Petronila a usufruct over the property until 01 June 1998 when Manuel, a son of Petronila, would have reached his 30th birthday. Manuel, however, died on 1 June 1990 when he was only 26 years old. Minerva notified Petronila that the usufruct had been extinguished by the death of Manuel and demanded that thelatter vacate the premises and deliver the same to the former. Petronila refused to vacate the place on the ground that the usufruct in her favor would expire only on 1 June 1998 when Manuel would have reached his 30th birthday and that the death of Manuel before his 30th birthday did not extinguish the usufruct. Whose contention should be accepted? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Petronila's contention is correct. Under Article 606 of the Civil Code, a usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a third person reaches a certain age shall subsist for the number of years specified even if the third person should die unless there is an express stipulation in the contract that states otherwise. In the case at bar, there is no express stipulation that the consideration for the usufruct is the existence of Petronila's son. Thus, the general rule and not the exception should apply in this case. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: This is a usufruct which is clearly intended for the benefit of

Manuel until he reaches 30 yrs. of age with Petronila serving only as a conduit, holding the property in trust for his benefit. The death of Manuel at the age of 26 therefore, terminated the usufruct.