ABELLANA VS.

CA

Facts:

Abellana et al are the owners of a parcel of land located at the northwestern side of the Nonoc
Homes Subdivision. They claim that they and their ancestors had been using this subdivision road,
which used to be a footpath, to access the road highway. However one day, when the parcel of
land, where the footpath is traversing, was developed into a subdivision, the subdivision lot owners,
constructed a concrete wall around the subdivision, which deprived Abellana et al of the use of the
footpath which gives them access to the public highway.

They asked the subdivision lot owners to remove the concrete wall so that the subdivision road will
be open to them.

The Subdivision lot owners denied that there was a pre-existing footpath and that they contend that
even if there was, they have the right to enclose their private property.

Abellana filed a suit to establish an easement of right of way over such subdivision road arguing that
they have acquired an easement of right of way through prescription under Article 620.

Issue: WON Abellana acquired an easement of right of way by prescription pursuant to

Article 620

Ruling: No. Article 620 provides that for one to acquire an easement of right of way by prescription,
such must be apparent and continuous.

In this case, the SC said that the use of a footpath or road may be apparent but it is not a
continuous easement because its use is at intervals and depends upon the acts of man.

It can be exercised only if a man passes or puts his feet over somebody else’s land.

Hence, the use of the footpath path, being not a continuous easement, cannot be acquired by
prescription.