Easement

What is Easement?
It is an encumbrance imposed upon an
immovable for the benefit of:
1. Another immovable belonging to a
different owner; or
2. For the benefit of a community or one
or more persons to whom the
encumbered estate does not belong
by virtue of which the owner is obliged
to abstain from doing or to permit a
certain thing to be done on his estate.
(NCC, Articles 613 and 614)
2
Characteristics of
easement
1. A right limited by the Needs of the dominant owner or
estate, without possession;
2. Inseparable from the estate to which it is attached – cannot
be alienated independently of the estate (NCC, Art. 617)
(2001, 2010 BAR);
3. Cannot consist in the doing of an act unless the act is
accessory in relation to a real easement;
4. Involves two (2) neighboring Estates: the dominant estate to
which the right belongs and the servient estate upon which
an obligation rests;
3
Characteristics of
easement
5. A limitation on the servient owner’s rights of ownership;
6. Indivisible – not affected by the division of the estate
between two or more persons (NCC, Art. 618);
7. It is enjoyed over another immovable never on one’s own
property; and
8. A real right but will affect third persons only when
registered.

4
PARTIES TO AN
EASEMENT
1. Dominant estate – refers to the immovable for which the
easement was established; and

2. Servient estate – the estate which provides the service or

benefit

5
“ SPS. MANUEL AND VICTORIA
SALIMBANGON v. SPS.
SANTOS AND ERLINDA TAN
G.R. No. 185240, January 20, 2010,
Abad, J.

6
Facts

Guillermo Ceniza (Ceniza) died intestate leaving a

parcel of land to his children, Subsequently, the heirs
divided among themselves the parcel of land and
agreed that Lot A will be given to petitioner Victoria
and Lots B, C, D and E to Eduardo, Carlos, Guillermo
Jr., and Benedicta respectively. Lots A, B, and C were
adjacent to a city street. But Lots D and E were not,
they being interior lots.

7
“
The heirs agreed to
impose a 3-meter
wide alley, an
easement of right of
way, that ran
exclusively along
the southwest
boundary of Lot B
from Lots D and E
to the street.

8
Facts
Spouses Santos and Erlinda Tan (the
Tans) bought Lots B, C, D, and E from all their owners. The Tans
built improvements on Lot B that spilled into the easement
area. Unable to use the old right of way, petitioners lodged a
complaint against the Tans. For their part, the Tans filed an
action with the RTC against the Salimbangons for the
extinguishment of the easement on Lot B. RTC upheld
Salimbangons’ easement of right of way over the alley on Lot B;
however, CA reversed the RTC decision, and extinguished the
easement of right of way established on the alley in Lot B of the
Tans.

9
Issue:

Whether or not the easement of right of way on Lot

B has been extinguished when the Tans bought Lots
B, C, D and E.

10
Ruling

Yes. The easement of right way for the benefit of Lots D and E
was extinguished. The Court affirmed the CA‘s decision that
based on the testimony of one of the previous owners, Eduardo
Ceniza, the true intent of the parties was to establish that
easement of right of way for the benefit of the interior lots,
namely, Lots D and E. Consequently, when ownership of Lots B,
D, and E was consolidated into the Tans, the easement ceased to
have any purpose and became extinct. The existence of a
dominant estate and a servient estate is incompatible with the
idea that both estates belong to the same person.

11
CLASSIFICATIONS OF
EASEMENT

As to recipient of the benefit:

a. Real (or predial) – The easement is in favor of
another immovable (NCC, Art. 613); and
b. Personal – The easement is in favor of a
community, or of one or more persons to whom
the encumbered estate does not belong e.g.
easement of right of way for for passage of
livestock.
12
CLASSIFICATIONS OF
EASEMENT
As to the manner of exercise
a. Continuous – Their use may or may not be
incessant, without the intervention of any act of
man. E.g. Easement of drainage (NCC, Art. 615); and
b. Discontinuous – Used at intervals and depend
upon the acts of man. E.g. Easement of right of way

13
CLASSIFICATIONS OF
EASEMENT
As to whether their existence is indicated
a. Apparent – Made known and continually kept in
view by external signs that reveal the use and
enjoyment of the same (NCC, Art. 615); and
b. Non-apparent – They show no external
indication of their existence. (NCC, Art. 615)

14
CLASSIFICATIONS OF
EASEMENT
As to the right given
a. Right to partially use the servient estate;
b. Right to get specific materials or objects from the servient
estate;
c. Right to participate in ownership; and
d. Right to impede or prevent the neighboring estate from
performing a specific act of ownership.

15
CLASSIFICATIONS OF
EASEMENT
As to source
a. Legal – Those created by law for public use or private
interests;
b. Voluntary - constituted by will or agreement of the parties
or by testator; and
c. Mixed – Created partly by agreement and partly by law.

16
CLASSIFICATIONS OF
EASEMENT
As to the duty of the servient owner:
a. Positive – Imposes upon the owner of the servient
estate the obligation of allowing something to be
done or doing it himself;
b. Negative – Prohibits the owner of the servient estate
from doing something which he could lawfully do if
the easement did not exist.

17
Modes of Acquiring
EASEMENT
Modes of Acquiring
EASEMENT
▪ By Title
▪ By Prescription of 10 years
▪ By deed of Recognition
▪ By Final judgment
▪ By Apparent sign established by the owner of the
two adjoining estates

2
1. Positive easement
2. Negative easement

Computation of prescriptive period

3
Doctrine of Apparent Sign
Easements are inseparable from the estate to which they actively or passively pertain. The
existence of apparent sign under Art. 624 is equivalent to a title. It is as if there is an
implied contract between the two new owners that the easement should be constituted,
since no one objected to the continued existence of the windows.
Modes of Extinguishment of
Easements

╸ By Merger
╸ By Non-user for 10 years
╸ By Impossibility of Use
╸ By the Expiration of the term or the fulfillment of
the condition
╸ By the Renunciation
╸ By the Redemption
5
LEGAL EASEMENT

Public Legal Easement Private legal easement

Public legal easement is for Private legal easement is for

public or communal use. the interest of private
persons or for private use.

6
Kinds of Easements

1. Easement relating 5. Drainage of Building

to Waters 6. Intermediate distances and works for certain
2. Easement relating construction and plantings
to right of Way 7. Easement against Nuisance
3. Easement of Party
wall
8. Easement relating to lateral and Subjacent
4. Easement of Light support.
and view

7
Easements
Relating To
Waters
Easements Relating To
Waters

Easement on Riparian banks

Drainage of
Natural drainage for navigation, floatage,
Buildings fishing, salvage, and tow path

Easement for
drawing Water or for
Easement of
Easement of a Dam
watering animals Aqueduct

Easement for the

Construction of a Stop
Lock or Sluice Gate

9
NATURAL DRAINAGE

Duties of Servient Estate

The owner cannot construct works that would impede the easement BUT he may regulate or
control the descent of water.

Duties of Dominant Estate

He cannot construct works which will increase the burden, but he may construct works
preventing erosion;

They must compensate the owners of the servient estates if the waters are result of an overflow
from irrigation dams, or the result of artificial descent done by man and damages caused by
reason thereof.

10
NATURAL DRAINAGE

Prescription of easement of natural drainage

The easement of natural drainage prescribes by non-use for 10 years.

Indemnity in easement of natural drainage

Art. 637 of the New Civil Code, which provides for the easement of natural drainage, does not speak
of any indemnity. It follows that no indemnity is required as long as the conditions laid down in the
article are complied with.

11
DRAINAGE OF BUILDINGS

The owner of a building shall be obliged to construct its roof or covering in such manner that the
rainwater shall fall on his own land or on a street or public place, and not on the land of his
neighbor, even though the adjacent land may belong to two or more persons, one of whom is the
owner of the roof. Even if it should fall on his own land, the owner shall be obliged to collect the
water in such a way as not to cause damage to the adjacent land or tenement.

12
Easement on Riparian banks for
navigation, floatage, fishing,
salvage, and tow path

Easement on Riparian Property

The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes
throughout their entire length and within a zone of three meters in urban
areas, 20 meters in agricultural areas, and 40 meters in forest areas
along their margins are subject to the easement of public use in the
interest of recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage.
No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone bigger than what is
necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage or to
build structures of any kind. (Art. 51, PD 1067)

13
Easement of a Dam

A person may establish the easement of abutment or of a dam provided that:

1. The purpose is to divert or take water from a river or brook, or to use any other continuous
or discontinuous stream;
2. It is necessary to build a dam;
3. The person to construct it is not the owner of the banks or lots which must support it; and
4. Payment of proper indemnity is made.

He must seek the permission of the owner and in case of latter’s refusal, he must secure authority
from the proper administrative agency.

14
Easement for drawing
Water or for watering
animals
This is a combined easement for drawing of water and right of way.

Requisites for easement for watering cattle

1. It must be imposed for reasons of public use;

2. It must be in favor of a town or village; and
3. Indemnity must be paid. (NCC, Art. 640)

15
Easement for drawing
Water or for watering
animals
Requisites for drawing water or for watering of animals
1. Owner of the dominant estate has the capacity to dispose of the
water;
2. The water is sufficient for the use intended;
3. Proposed right of way is the most convenient and the least
onerous to third persons; and
4. Pay indemnity to the owner of the servient estate. (NCC, Art. 643)
NOTE: The absence of any one of these requirements will prevent the imposition of
the easement of aqueduct on the intervening estates.

16
Easement of Aqueduct

The easement of aqueduct, for legal purposes, is considered continuous and apparent
even though the flow of water may not be continuous, or its use depends upon the
needs of the dominant estate or upon a schedule of alternate days or hours. (NCC, Art.
646)
NOTE: Easement of aqueduct is not acquirable by prescription after 10 years because although it is
continuous and apparent in character, under the Water Code of the Philippines (P.D. 1067), all waters belong
to the State; therefore, they cannot be the subject of acquisitive prescription.

It is an easement which gives right to make water flow thru intervening estates in order
that one may make use of said water. However, unlike the easement for drawing water
or for watering animals, the existence of the latter does not necessarily include the
easement of aqueduct.

17
Easement of Aqueduct

Requisites for easement of aqueduct:

1. Indemnity must be paid to the owners of intervening estates and to the owners of
lower estates upon which waters may filter or descend.

NOTE: The amount usually depends on duration and inconvenience caused.

2. If for private interests, the easement cannot be imposed on existing buildings,

courtyards, annexes, out- houses, orchards or gardens but can be on other things,
like road, provided no injury is caused to said properties.

18
Easement of Aqueduct

There must be a proof:

▪ That the owner of the dominant estate can dispose of the water;
▪ That the water is sufficient for the use which it is intended;
▪ That the proposed course is the most convenient and least onerous to third persons
and the servient estate; and
▪ That a proper administrative permission has been obtained.

19
Easement of Aqueduct

Right of the owner of the servient estate to fence

The easement of aqueduct does not prevent the owner of the servient estate from
closing or fencing it, or from building over the aqueduct in such manner as not to cause
the owner of the dominant estate any damage or render necessary repairs and cleanings
impossible.

20
Easement for the Construction of
a Stop Lock or Sluice Gate

To make these structures in the bed of a stream from

which they needed water for irrigation or improvement of
the dominant estate will be drawn, it is required that the
dominant owner pays the riparian owners where the
structures will be constructed for the damages caused to
the latter and to other irrigators who may sustain
damages also.

21
Easement for the Construction of Liwag vs Happy Glen Loop Homeowners
a Stop Lock or Sluice Gate
Association, Inc.
G.R. No. 189755, July 4, 2012

Q: The original developer of Happy Glen Loop (HGL) loaned from T. P. Marcelo Realty
Corporation. HGL failed to settle its debts so he assigned all his rights to Marcelo over several
parcels of land in the subdivision. Marcelo represented to lot buyers that a water facility is
available in the subdivision. Marcelo sold the lot to Liwag who subsequently died. The wife of
Liwag demanded the removal of the overhead water tank over the parcel of land contending
that its existence is merely tolerated. HGL Homeowners Association refused the demand
contending that they have used continuously the facility for more than 30 years.

Is there an established easement for water facility in the lot?

22
A: YES.
The water facility is an encumbrance on the lot of the Subdivision for the benefit of the
community. It is continuous and apparent, because it is used incessantly without human
intervention, and because it is continually kept in view by the overhead water tank, which
reveals its use to the public. The easement of water facility has been voluntarily
established either by Marcelo, the Subdivision owner and the original developer of the
Subdivision. For more than 30 years, the facility was continuously used as the residents’
sole source of water.

23
Easement
Easement of Right
of Way

Easement of right of way is the right granted to a person or

class of persons to pass over the land of another by using a
particular pathway therein, to reach the former’s estates,
which have no adequate outlet to a public highway
subject, however to payment of indemnity to the owner of
the land burdened by the right. (Pineda, 2009)

2
Right Of
Way
It may refer either to the
easement itself, or simply, to
the strip of land over which
passage can be done.
(Paras, 2008)

3
 What kind of servitude in favor of the
Q government is a private owner required
to recognize?
 The only servitude which he is required to
recognize in favor of the government are:

A 1. The easement of a public highway;

2. Private way established by law; or
3. Any government canal or lateral that has
been pre-existing at the time of the
registration of the land
Servitude in Favor
of the Government

NOTE: If the easement is not pre-existing and is sought to be

imposed only after the land has been registered under the
Land Registration Act, proper expropriation proceedings
should be had, and just compensation paid to the registered-
owner.

6
Requisites for
easement on right
of way
1. The easement must be
established at the point least
prejudicial to the servient
estate (NCC, Art. 649)
2. Claimant must be an owner of
enclosed
3. There must be no adequate
outlet to a public highway
[NCC, Art. 649, (1)]
4. The right of way must be
absolutely necessary not
mere convenience;
5. The isolation must not be due
to the claimant’s own act
(NCC, Art. 649)
6. There must be payment of
proper indemnity.
7
David-Chan v. CA
G.R. No. 105294 February 26, 1997
Pacita David-Chan alleged that her lot was delineated on its
northern and western sides by various business establishments.
Adjoining her (petitioner) property along its southern boundary
was the land of the Pineda family, while along the east-
northeastern boundary, and lying between her property and the
MacArthur Highway, was another lot owned by private
respondent Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.
Facts
David-Chan also alleged that her only access to the highway was
a very small opening measuring two feet four inches wide
through the aforementioned property of private respondent Phil.
Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.

David-Chan believed she was entitled to a wider compulsory

easement of right of way through the said property of Philippine
Rabbit. 8
David-Chan v. CA
G.R. No. 105294 February 26, 1997

Likewise, David-Chan alleged that Philippine Rabbit was about to

complete the construction of its concrete fence on the said lot
which would result in depriving petitioner David- Chan of the only
available right of way.

Facts In short, petitioner's lot was almost completely surrounded by

other immovables and cut off from the highway.

9
David-Chan v. CA
G.R. No. 105294 February 26, 1997
This prompted David-Chan to petition the court with prayer for
preliminary prohibitory injunction, seeking to stop Philippine
Rabbit from fencing its property and depriving her of access to
the highway.

Philippine Rabbit denied the allegations contending that David-

Chan had another access to the National Highway without passing
Facts through the lot in question, which, however, she closed during the
pendency of the case at the trial court when she extended the
construction of her fence.
fence.

10
David-Chan v. CA
G.R. No. 105294 February 26, 1997

Whether David-Chan is entitled to an easement of right of way

from the Philippine Rabbit's property?

Issue

11
David-Chan v. CA
G.R. No. 105294 February 26, 1997

No. The court has held that that petitioner David-Chan is not
"without adequate outlet to a public highway."

It was David-Chan who built a concrete fence on the southern

boundary of her property to separate it from the property of the
Pineda family. She also closed the 28-inch clearance during the
pendency of the case, which she could use as a means to reach
Ruling the National Highway without passing through the property of
Philippine Rabbit.

12
David-Chan v. CA
G.R. No. 105294 February 26, 1997
Furthermore, David-Chan caused her own isolation by closing her
access through the Pineda’s property. It was petitioner who built a
fence to separate her property from that of the Pineda family on
the southern boundary. And she even closed the small opening
causing her property to be isolated and losing one access to the
National Highway.

Plaintiff thus failed to meet the third requisite for the grant of an
Ruling easement of right of way—
the isolation is not due to the proprietor's own acts.

13
“
Least prejudicial in determining
the right of way means it is the
shortest way and the one which
will cause the least damage to
the property to the servient estate
in favor of the dominant estate.”
Least prejudicial to the servient estate
(1996, 2000, 2005, 2010 BAR)

14
Q: What if the property is not the shortest
way but will cause the least damage to the
servient estate?

A: The way which will cause the least damage should be used
even if it will not be the shortest.
The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least
prejudicial to the servient estate and where the distance from the
dominant estate to a public highway is the shortest.
In case of conflict, the criterion of least prejudice prevails over
the criterion of shortest distance.

15
Adequate Outlet

The convenience of the dominant estate has never been the gauge
for the grant of compulsory right of way.
To be sure, the true standard for the grant of the legal right is
"adequacy.“
Hence, when there is already an existing adequate outlet from the
dominant estate to a public highway, as in this case, even when the
said outlet, for one reason or another, be inconvenient, the need to
open up another servitude is entirely unjustified.

16
When Adequate Outlet to a
Public Highway
is Available Through Water

If the outlet to a highway is through water, like a river, lake or sea, and
the same is not dangerous to cross nor do they pose grave
inconvenience, the right of way should not be granted.

If the waterway is dangerous and to construct a bridge over it is too

expensive, it is as if there is no available outlet to the highway. In
which case, right of way is grantable.

17
Determination of proper
indemnity to the
servient estate

Continuous and permanent Temporary

The indemnity consists of the Indemnity consists in the

value of the land occupied payment of the damage
plus the amount of damages caused.
caused to the servient estate.

18
Two instances where
indemnity is not
required
When a piece of land acquired
by sale, exchange or partition
is surrounded by other estates
of the vendor, exchanger or
co-owner.
In such case he shall be
obliged to grant a right of way
without indemnity.
When a piece of land acquired
by donation surround the
estate of the donor or grantor.
In such case, the donee or
grantee shall be obliged to
grant a right of way without
indemnity.
19
Measurement for the
easement of right of
way

The width of the easement shall be that which is sufficient for the
needs of the dominant estate. (NCC, Art. 651)

Q: Can a dominant owner demand a driveway for his automobile?

A: YES, due to necessity of motor vehicles in the present age.

20
Liability for repairs
and taxes

1. As to repairs, the dominant owner is liable

for necessary repairs;

2. As to proportionate share of the taxes, it shall be

reimbursed by said owner to the proprietor of the servient
estate. This applies only to permanent easements. (NCC,Art.
654)

21
Special causes of
extinguishment of right of
way
1. The opening of a public road
giving access to isolated estate
2. When the dominant estate is
joined to another estate (such
as when the dominant owner
bought an adjacent estate)
which is abutting a public road,
the access being adequate
and convenient. (NCC, Art. 655)
22
Easement of Party Wall

It is governed by:
The easement of party wall is
also called servidumbre de ▪the Civil Code
medianera.
▪local ordinances and
Is a wall erected on the line customs
between the adjoining
properties belonging to ▪the rules co-ownership.
different persons, for the use
of both estates. (Pineda, 2009)

23
Repairs and Maintenance of
a Party Wall

GR: The expenses for construction and repairs of party walls shall
be shouldered by all the owners of the party wall.

XPN: If a part owner renounces his part ownership on the party wall.
The renunciation must be absolute and total because the easement
of party wall is indivisible.

24
Easement of Light and View

The easement of LIGHT — “Jus luminum” The opening is for the

purpose of admitting light and not for viewing.

(as in the case of small windows, not more than 30 cm. square, at
the height of the ceiling joist, the purpose of which is to admit light,
and a little air, but not VIEW). (Paras. 2008)

25
Easement of Light and View

The easement of VIEW — “Servidumbre prospectus” The opening is

for the purpose of viewing.
(as in the case of full or regular windows overlooking the adjoining
estate) (Incidentally, although the principal purpose here is VIEW, the
easement of light is necessarily included, as well as the easement of
altius non tollendi [not to build higher for the purpose of obstruction.
(Paras, 2008).

26
Restrictions for making an
opening for light
and air

1. The size must not exceed 30-centimeter square

2. The opening must be at the height of the ceiling joists or
immediately under the ceiling
3. There must be an iron grating imbedded in the wall
4. There must be a wire screen.

27
Easement of Light and View

If the window is
thru one’s own
wall, that is, thru a
wall of the
dominant estate, it
is Negative
Easement of Light
and View.

28
Easement of Drainage of
Buildings

The owner of a building shall be obliged to construct its roof or

covering in such manner that the rain water shall fall on his own land
or on a street or public place, and not on the land of his neighbor,
even though the adjacent land may belong to two or more persons,
one of whom is the owner of the roof. Even if it should fall on his own
land, the owner shall be obliged to collect the water in such a way as
not to cause damage to the adjacent land or tenement.

29
Easement to receive falling
rain waters

The owner of a tenement or a piece of land, subject to the easement

of receiving water falling from roofs, may build in such manner as to
receive the water upon his own roof or give it another outlet in
accordance with local ordinances or customs, and in such a way as
not to cause any nuisance or damage whatever to the dominant
estate.

30
Requisites for Easement giving
outlet to rainwater where
house surrounded by other
houses

1. There must be no adequate outlet to the rainwater because the yard

or court of a house is surrounded by other houses;
2. The outlet to the water must be at the point where egress is easiest,
and establishing a conduit for drainage; and
3. There must be payment of proper indemnity.

31
Easement to receive falling
rain waters

Roof/Covering

Rain Water

32
Ownership of Rainwater

Pursuant to the provision of the Water Code of the

Philippines, the, rain waters falling on private lands
shall belong to the State.

33
Thanks!

34
“
Can there be a stipulation or testamentary provision
allowing excavations that could cause danger to an
adjacent land or building?

No. Under Article 685 of the Civil Code:

“Any Stipulation or testamentary provision
allowing excavations that cause danger to an
adjacent land or building shall be void.”

Reason: a person is protected even against his own folly, in the

interest of public safety. (Paras, p.729)

1
“ What should be done first before making an
excavation?

Any proprietor who intends to make any excavation

shall notify all owners of adjacent lands.

2
1 VOLUNTARY EASEMENT
When is an easement voluntary?

It is voluntary when it is established by the will of the owners.

Art. 688. Every owner of a tenement or piece of land may establish thereon
the easements which he may deem suitable, and in the manner and form
which he may deem best, provided he does not contravene the laws, public
policy or public order.

4
“
Who may constitute voluntary easements?
The owner possessing capacity to encumber property
may constitute voluntary servitude. If there are
various owners, all must consent; but consent once
given is not revocable.

5
For whose favor are voluntary
easements established?

1. Predial servitudes:

a. for the owner of the dominant estate

b. for any other person having any juridical relation with the dominant
estate, if the owner ratifies it.

2. Personal servitudes: for anyone capacitated to accept.

6
“ How are voluntary easements created
and what are the governing rules for
such?

1. If created by title (contract, will, etc.), the title governs.

2. If acquired by prescription, it is governed by the manner
or form of possession.

In both cases, the Civil Code will only apply suppletorily.

7
“ Owner with a Resolutory or
Annullable Title
If a person is an owner with a resolutory title or an annullable one,
he can create an easement over the property, BUT it is deemed
extinguished upon resolution or annulment of the right. (Manresa)

The same may be said of an easement created in good faith by the

will merely of the usufructuary or possessor in good faith.

8
UNISOURCE COMMERCIAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
vs.
JOSEPH CHUNG, KIAT CHUNG and KLETO CHUNG
July 17, 2009

FACTS:
Unisource Commercial and Development Corporation (UNISOURCE) owned a parcel of land covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 176253 of the Register of Deeds of Manila.
The title contains a memorandum of encumbrance of a voluntary easement which has been carried over
from the Original Certificate of Title of Encarnacion S. Sandico.
The Annotation reads:
“. . . it is declared that Francisco Hidalgo y Magnifico has the right to open doors in the course of his lot
described as Lot No. 2, Block 2650 of the map that has been exhibited, towards the left of the Callejon
that is used as a passage and that appears as adjacent to the said Lot 2 and to pass through the land of
Encarnacion Sandico y Santana, until the bank of the estero that goes to the Pasig River, and towards the
right of the other Callejon that is situated between the said Lot 2 and Lot 4 of the same Block N. . .”

9
As Sandico’s property was transferred to several owners, the memorandum of encumbrance of a voluntary
easement in favor of Francisco M. Hidalgo was consistently annotated at the back of every title covering
Sandico’s property until TCT No. 176253 was issued in petitioner’s favor.
On the other hand, Hidalgo’s property was eventually transferred to respondents Joseph Chung, Kiat
Chung and Cleto Chung under TCT No. 121488.
Unisource filed a petition to Cancel the Encumbrance of Voluntary Easement of Right of Way on the ground
that the dominant estate (Hidalgo’s property) has an adequate access to a public road which is Matienza
Street.

The trial court ruled in favor of Unisource and held that the dominant estate has no more use for the
easement since it has another adequate outlet to a public road which is Matienza Street in accordance with
Article 631(3) of the Civil Code which reads:

“Easements are extinguished: When either or both of the estates fall into such condition that the
easement cannot be used; but it shall revive if the subsequent condition of the estates or either of them
should again permit its use, unless when the use becomes possible, sufficient time for prescription has
elapsed, in accordance with the provisions of the preceding number;”

10
ISSUE:

Whether or not the Encumbrance of Voluntary Easement of Right of Way may be cancelled.

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents and held that Article 631(3) of the Civil Code,
which was cited by the trial court, is inapplicable since the presence of an adequate outlet to a
highway extinguishes only legal or compulsory easements but not voluntary easements.

An easement is a real right on another’s property, corporeal and immovable, whereby the owner of the
latter must refrain from doing or allowing somebody else to do or something to be done on his property,
for the benefit of another person or tenement.

Easements are established either by law or by the will of the owner.

The former are called legal, and the latter, voluntary easements.

There having been an agreement between the original parties for the provision of an easement of right of
way in favor of the dominant estate, the same can be extinguished only by mutual agreement or by
renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate.

11
3 OWNERSHIP OF WATERS
 “
Principles:
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1067

(a) All waters belong to the State.

(b) All waters that belong to the State can not be the subject to acquisitive
prescription.

(c) The State may allow the use or development of waters by administrative
concession.

(d) The utilization, exploitation, development, conservation and protection of

water resources shall be subject to the control and regulation of the
government through the National Water Resources Council, hereinafter
referred to as the Council.

(e) Preference in the use and development of waters shall consider current
usages and be responsive to the changing needs of the country.

13
 “
The following belong to the State:

(a) Rivers and their natural beds;

(b) Continuous or intermittent waters of springs and brooks running in their
natural beds and the beds themselves;
(c) Natural lakes and lagoons;
(d) All other categories of surface waters such as water flowing over lands, water
from rainfall whether natural, or artificial, and water from agriculture runoff,
seepage and drainage;
(e) Atmospheric water;
(f) Subterranean or ground waters; and,
(g) Seawater.

14
 “
The following waters found on private lands belong to the State:

(a) Continuous or intermittent waters rising on such lands;

(b) Lakes and lagoons naturally occuring on such lands;

(c) Rain water falling on such lands;

(d) Subterranean or ground waters; and,

(e) Water in swamps and marshes.

The owner of the land where the water is found may use the same for domestic
purposes without securing a permit, provided that such use shall be registered,
when required by the Council.
The Council, however, may regulate such when there is wastage, or in times of
emergency.

15
“ Any person who captures or collects water by means of cisterns,
tanks, or pools shall have exclusive control over such water and
the right to dispose of the same.

Water legally appropriated shall be subject to the control of the

appropriator from the moment it reaches the appropriator's
canal or aqueduct leading to the place where the water will be
used or stored and, thereafter, so long as it is being beneficially
used for the purposes for which it was appropriated.

16
“ APPROPRIATION OF WATERS
Waters may be appropriated and used in accordance with the
provisions of this Code.

Appropriation of water, as used in this Code, is the acquisition

of rights over the use of waters or the taking or diverting of
waters from a natural source in the manner and for any
purpose allowed by law.

17
“ Water may be appropriated for the following purposes:
(a) Domestic

(b) Municipal

(c) Irrigation

(d) Power generation

(e) Fisheries

(f) Livestock raising

(g) Industrial

(h) Recreational, and

(i) Other purposes

18
“ No person, including government
instrumentalities or government-owned or
controlled corporations, shall appropriate
water without a water right, which shall be
evidenced by a document known as a water
permit.

Water right is the privilege granted by the

government to appropriate and use water

19
“
Subject to the provisions of the Water Code concerning
the control, protection, conservation, and regulation of the
appropriation and use of waters, any person may
appropriate or use natural bodies of water without
securing a water permit for any of the following:
a) Appropriation of water by means of hand-carried
receptacles; and
(b) Bathing or washing, watering or dipping of domestic or
farm animals, and navigation of watercrafts or
transportation of logs and other objects by flotation.

20
“
Only citizens of the Philippines, of legal age, as well as juridical
persons, who are duly qualified by law to exploit and develop water
resources, may apply for water permits.

Any person who desires to obtain a water permit shall file an application
with the Council who shall make known said application to the public for
any protests.

In determining whether to grant or deny an application, the Council shall

consider the following: protests filed, if any; prior permits granted; the
availability of water; the water supply needed for beneficial use; possible
adverse effects; land-use economics; and other relevant factors.

Upon approval of an application, a water permit shall be issued and

recorded.
All water permits granted shall be subject to conditions of
beneficial use, adequate standards of design and construction,
and such other terms and conditions as may be imposed by the
Council.

21
“
Water permits shall specify the maximum amount of water which may be
diverted or withdrawn, the maximum rate of diversion or withdrawal, the time
or times during the year when water may be diverted or withdrawn, the
points or points of diversion or location of wells, the place of use, the
purposes of which water may be used and such other requirements the
Council deems desirable.

The measure and limit of appropriation of water shall be beneficial use.

Beneficial use of water is the utilization of water in the right amount during
the period that the water is needed for producing the benefits for which the
water is appropriated.

22
“ A holder of water permit may demand the establishment of easements
necessary for the construction and maintenance of the works and
facilities needed for the beneficial use of the waters to be appropriated
subject to the requirements of just compensation and to the following
conditions:

(a) That he is the owner, lessee, mortgagee or one having real right
over the land upon which he proposes to use water; and

(b) That the proposed easement is the most convenient and the least
onerous to the servient estate.

Easements relating to the appropriation and use of waters may be

modified by agreement of the contracting parties provided the same is
not contrary to law or prejudicial to third persons.

23
UTILIZATION OF WATERS

Water contained in open canals, aqueducts or reservoirs of private persons may be used by any
person for domestic purpose or for watering plants as long as the water is withdrawn by manual
methods without checking the stream or damaging the canal, aqueduct or reservoir;
Provided, That this right may be restricted by the owner should it result in loss or injury to him.
(US CASE)

24
“
When the reuse of waste water is feasible, it shall be limited as much as
possible, to such uses other than direct human consumption. No person or
agency shall distribute such water for public consumption until it is
demonstrated that such consumption will not adversely affect the health and
safety of the public.

In the construction and operation of hydraulic works, due consideration shall

be given to the preservation of scenic places and historical relics and, in
addition to the provisions of existing laws, no works that would require the
destruction or removal of such places or relics shall be undertaken without
showing that the distribution or removal is necessary and unavoidable.

Authority for the construction of dams, bridges and other

structures across of which may interfere with the flow of navigable
or floatable waterways shall first be secured from the Department
of Public Works, Transportation and Communications.

25
“
Except in cases of emergency to save life or property, the construction
or repair of the following works shall be undertaken only after the plans
and specifications therefor, as may be required by the Council, are
approved by the proper government agency; dams for the diversion or
storage of water; structures for the use of water power, installations for
the utilization of subterranean or ground water and other structures for
utilization of water resources.

Unless-otherwise ordered by the President of the Philippines and only in

time of national calamity or emergency, no person shall induce or
restrain rainfall by any method such as cloud seeding without a permit
from the proper government emergency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRIce9QgsiY
26
“
When a water resources project interferes with the access of landowner
to a portion of his property or with the conveyance of irrigation or
drainage water, the person or agency constructing the project shall
bear the cost of construction and maintenance of the bridges, flumes
and other structures necessary for maintaining access, irrigation, or
drainage, in addition to paying compensation for land and incidental
damages.

Any person having an easement for an aqueduct may enter upon

the servient land for the purpose of cleaning, repairing or replacing
the aqueduct or the removal of obstructions therefrom.

Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which naturally

and without the intervention of man flow from the higher estate, as
well as the stone or earth which they carry with them.

The owner of the lower estate can not construct works which will
impede this natural flow, unless he provides an alternative method
of drainage; neither can the owner of the higher estate make
works which will increase this natural flow.

27
“
The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes
throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in
urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas and forty (40)
meters in forest areas, along their margins are subject to the
easement of public use in the interest of recreation, navigation,
floatage, fishing and salvage.

No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is

necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage or to
build structures of any kind.

28
“
When a river or stream suddenly changes its course to traverse private
lands, the owners of the affected lands may not compel the government
to restore the river to its former bed; nor can they restrain the
government from taking steps to revert the river or stream to its former
course.

The owners of the land thus affected are not entitled to compensation for
any damage sustained thereby.

However, the former owners of the new bed shall be the owners of the
abandoned bed in proportion to the area lost by each.

The owners of the affected lands may undertake to return the river or
stream to its old bed at their own expense;

Provided, That a permit therefor is secured from the Secretary of Public

Works, Transportation and Communicationand work pertaining thereto
are commenced within two years from the change in the course of the
river or stream.

29
“ The Kaliwa Dam Project
The Kaliwa Dam is part of the New Centennial Water Source (NCWS), a project
for which President Rodrigo Duterte has secured with a $235.9 million loan deal
from China as part of the “Build, Build, Build” program.

The indigenous community defeated a previous iteration of this project, when a

much larger dam was proposed in 2009, but the project has since been revised to
call for nine smaller dams — an approach that observers say will undermine the
resistance to the project.

Community clusters voted to reject the Kaliwa Dam project, but the
environment department still issued an environmental compliance
certificate to the contractors; Former President Duterte has also warned of
the use of “extraordinary powers” to push the project through, raising the
prospect of another show of mass resistance.

30
Kaliwa river gets its name from its geography.

Running along the eastern border of Quezon province, it

meets the Kanan (right) River before uniting with the mighty
Agos River that carves a labyrinthine path through
farmlands and fishing grounds in the downstream
municipality of Infanta before eventually emptying out into
the Pacific.

The riverine system is renowned for its untouched beauty,

massive volume of water, and tremendous potential —
factors that have made it a prime target for national
development projects.

31
“

32
 The Kaliwa Dam Project is being objected to by the– Dumagat - Remontado

“
indigenous group has ancestral domain claims in an area where the Philippine
government plans to build a dam to supply for being:

❑ Violative of legal processes and the Philippine constitution,

❑ Destructive to the environment, and
❑ For being against the country's national interest.
• It will affect the ancestral forests where 5,000 Dumagat-Remontados
reside in the Sierra Madre, and submerge at least 6 sacred sites;

• It is being expedited by the railroading of its legal process, particularly

the right of the Dumagat-Remontados to Free, Prior, and Informed
Consent process under IPRA;

• It will destroy the biodiversity and habitat of 126 species in 300 hectares
of the Sierra Madre, submerge 291 hectares of forests, and endanger
100,000 residents downstream with the risk of massive flooding;

• It faces a short lifespan of 5-6 years due to the high rate of

sedimentation in the area;

33
 "Caring for ecosystems demands far-sightedness,
since no one looking for quick and easy profit is truly interested in their
preservation.

But the cost of the damage caused by such selfish lack of concern is much
greater than the economic benefits to be obtained."

(Laudato Si, No. 36)

34
 RUINOUS
BUILDINGS AND
TREES IN DANGER
2 OF FALLING
 “
Rule in Case of Buildings, etc. in
Danger of Falling
On Maria’s estate, is a wall facing the street. The wall is in danger of falling.
May the owner be compelled to demolish or repair it?

Yes.
Under Article 482:
“If a building, wall, column, or any other construction is in danger of falling, the
owner shall be obliged to demolish it or to execute the necessary work in order to
prevent it from falling.
If the proprietor does not comply with this obligation, the administrative
authorities may order the demolition of the structure
at the expense of the owner or take measures to insure public safety.”

2
 “
The complainant who brings the case must either have his property
adjacent to the dangerous construction, or must have to pass by
necessity in the immediate vicinity. (Manresa)
If the construction falls, the owner would be liable for damages.

Article 2190 of the Civil Code provides:

“The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for
the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if
It should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.”

3
“
Who shall be responsible for
damages?

Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages

caused:

xxx

(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes,

if not caused by force majeure;

4
“
Who shall be responsible for
damages?

Art. 2191. Proprietors shall be responsible for damages caused:

xxx

(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes,

if not caused by force majeure;

5
3 OWNERSHIP OF WATERS
Subterranean
Waters
Article 512-514 of the Civil Code

1
“ Definition of Subterranean Waters
Subterranean water is water that is
:
found beneath the earth's surface
and is not artificially confined. This
type of water is also known as
groundwater.

2
“ Definition of Subterranean Waters
Examples of subterranean water
:
include:
• Water that is found in layers of
permeable rock or soil
• Water that seeps through the soil
without a defined channel

3
“ Definition of Subterranean Waters
These examples illustrate how
:
subterranean water is not visible on
the surface and is instead found
underground. This type of water is
important for many uses, including

drinking water and irrigation.

4
512
Subterranean Waters
Only the owner of a piece of land, or another person with his permission, may make
explorations thereon for subterranean waters, except as provided by the Mining Law.

Explorations for subterranean waters on lands of public dominion may be made only with
the permission of the administrative authorities.
“ Illustration:
“A wants to make exploration
for subterranean waters
beneath the lot of B, and
beneath a lot of Public
Dromion. Does A has the right
to do so?”

6
“ Answer:
Regarding B’s lot, A should ask B’s
permission except if he is allowed
to make explorations under Mining
Law. Regarding the public lot, A
should request permission from
the proper administrative authority.

7
Classes of
Subterranean Waters

• More or less permanent; definite

Flowing
water
course

•No definite course or channel, like rain

Percolating
water
water seeping thru the soil.

8
513
Subterranean Waters
Waters artificially brought forth in accordance with
the Special Law of Waters of August 3, 1866,
belong to the person who brought them up.
“ Illustration:
“Waters artificially brought forth”
- A artificially brought up certain
waters. He owns the said water, so
they are of private dominion. The
bringing up is usually done through
wells”

10
“ Illustration:
“Permitting Others to Construct a Well on
Your Land”
- If you allow another to incur expenses by
permitting him to bore a well on your own
land, you cannot later on refuse
permission for him to use the well without
reimbursing him thereof, otherwise fraud
will be encouraged. (Mirasol v. Mun. of
Tabaco, 43 Phil. 610)

11
“ Illustration:
“Digging of Artesian Well”
- Artesian wells may be dug provided that
public waters are not diverted from natural
course, otherwise the Government can
step-in. No well may be dug within mining
property unless indemnity is given. (Art. 50,
pars. 1 and 2, Spanish Law of Waters)

12
Related Cases:
“ Mirasol v. Mun. of Tabaco, 43 Phil. 610
Facts: The defendant, with the express consent of the
plaintiff, bored an artesian well for public use upon the
latter’s land and incurred large expenditures in the belief,
induced by the well would be permanently dedicated to
that use.
Issue: WON the plaintiff is estopped from revoking the
license.
Held: Yes, the plaintiff is estopped from revoking the
license thus granted without first reimbursing the
defendant for the expenses incurred.

13
514
Subterranean Waters
When the owner of waters artificially brought to the
surface abandons them to their natural course, they
shall become of public dominion.
General
Provisions
Article 515- 518 of the Civil Code

15
515
General Provision
The owner of a piece of land on which there are defensive works to check waters, or on
which, due to a change of their course, it may be necessary to reconstruct such works,
shall be obliged, at his election, either to make the necessary repairs or construction
himself, or to permit them to be done, without damage to him, by the owners of the
lands which suffer or are clearly exposed to suffer injury.
“ “The Repair of Dangerous Defensive Works
on Another’s Land”
Illustration:

- A, on his lot, constructed a dam to

check certain waters. But the dam is
now in great need of repair. May the
adjoining owners demand the repair?

17
“ “The Repair of Dangerous Defensive Works
on Another’s Land”
Answer:
- Yes, because their properties may be damaged. A
can be obliged to either:
(a) Repair the dam himself
(b) Or let others repair the dam.
Cost will be borne to those who would be benefited.
No damage must be cause on A’s land.

18
“ “Alternatives are exclusive”
- The alternatives given in
Article 515 are exclusive. So lower
estates cannot invade upper estates
and make diversion all by themselves.

19
516
General Provision
The provisions of the preceding article are applicable to the
case in which it may be necessary to clear a piece of land of
matter, whose accumulation or fall may obstruct the course
of the waters, to the damage or peril of third persons. (421)
“ “The Clearance of Dangerous
Matter”
Illustration:
- On A’s lot is a large deposit matter. A’s
neighbours feel that the deposit might fall, and
hence, might obstruct the course of the waters
which they need. May the neighbours ask for the
removal of the said accumulated matter?

21
“ “The Clearance of Dangerous
Matter”
Answer:
- Yes, A can be obliged to either:
(a) Clear the land himself
(b) or have the land cleared by others. (But the
neighbours cannot take matters into their own hands
and just construct a canal on A’s estate for their only
recourse is to exercise option.)

22
517
General Provision
All the owners who participate in the benefits arising from the works
referred to in the two preceding articles, shall be obliged to contribute
to the expenses of construction in proportion to their respective
interests. Those who by their fault may have caused the damage shall be
liable for the expenses. (422)
518
General Provision
All matters not expressly determined by the provisions of
this Chapter shall be governed by the special Law of
Waters of August 3, 1866, and by the Irrigation
Law. (425a)
“ Note: - In case of conflict between
Civil Code and Special Laws
Regarding Waters the CIVIL
CODE PREVAILS.

25
“ Resume of Laws Governing
Waters:
1. Civil Code of the Philippines
2. Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866.
3. The Irrigation Act (Act 2152) as amended.
4. The Water Powerr Act (Act 4062)
5. Section 2, Art XII, 1987 Constitution

26
“ PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1067 :
A decree instituting a water code,
thereby revising and consolidating the
laws governing the ownership,
appropriation, utilization, exploitation,
development, conservation and
protection of water resources.

27
 PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1067 :

“ I: Declaration of Objectives and Principles

II. Ownership of Waters
III. Appropriation of Waters
IV. Utilization of Waters
V. Control of Waters
VI. Conservation and Protection of Waters and Watersheds
and Related Land Resources
VII. Administration of Waters and Enforcement of the
Provisions of This Code
VIII. Penal Provisions
IX. Transitory and Final Provisions

28
Related Cases: MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES, INC. (MAYNILAD), Petitioner vs.
THE SECRETARY OF THE DENR, et al G.R. No. 202897

“
FACTS:

On ApriI 2, 2009, the Regional Office of the DENR

Environmental Management Bureau-Region III (EMB-RIII)
filed a complaint before the DENR's Pollution Adjudication
Board (PAB) charging MWSS and its concessionaires,
MAYNILAD and MANILA WATER, with failure to provide,
install, operate, and maintain adequate Wastewater
Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) for sewerage system
resulting in the degraded quality and beneficial use of the
receiving bodies of water leading to Manila Bay, and which
has directly forestalled the DENR's mandate to implement
the operational plan for the rehabilitation and restoration of
Manila Bay and its river tributaries

29
Related Cases: MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES, INC. (MAYNILAD), Petitioner vs.
THE SECRETARY OF THE DENR, et al G.R. No. 202897

“
ISSUE:

Whether petitioners violated Section 8 of the Clean

Water Act & Whether the ruling in MMDA v.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay supersedes the
five-year compliance period stated in Section 8 of the
Clean Water Act and extended petitioners'
compliance therewith until the year 2037.

30
Related Cases: MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES, INC. (MAYNILAD), Petitioner vs.
THE SECRETARY OF THE DENR, et al G.R. No. 202897

“
Provsion:
SECTION 8. Domestic Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal. - Within five (5) years following the
effectivity of this Act, the Agency vested to provide water supply and sewerage facilities and/or
concessionaires in Metro Manila and other highly urbanized cities (HUCs) as defined in Republic Act No.
7160, in coordination with LGUs, shall be required to connect the existing sewage line found in all
subdivisions, condominiums, commercial centers, hotels, sports and recreational facilities, hospitals, market
places, public buildings, industrial complex and other similar establishments including households to
available sewerage system. Provided, That the said connection shall be subject to sewerage services
charge/fees in accordance with existing laws, rules or regulations unless the sources had already utilized
their own sewerage system: Provided, further, That all sources of sewage and septage shall comply with the
requirements herein.

In areas not considered as HUCs, the DPWH in coordination with the Department,
DOH and other concerned agencies, shall employ septage or combined
sewerage-septage management system.

For the purpose of this section, the DOH, coordination with other government
agencies, shall formulate guidelines and standards for the collection, treatment
and disposal of sewage including guidelines for the establishment and
operation of centralized sewage treatment system.

31
Related Cases: MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES, INC. (MAYNILAD), Petitioner

“
vs. THE SECRETARY OF THE DENR, et al G.R. No. 202897

RULING:

Maynilad and Manila Water did not comply with Section 8 Given that a decade
has already passed following the effectivity of the Clean Water Act, both
MAYNILAD & MANILA WATER’S compliance to Section 8 at this current year
do not even reach 20% sewerage coverage. Indeed, petitioners have fully and
faithfully complied with the proviso in Section 8, only in the aspect that they
are authorized under the Service Obligations under the Agreements to impose
sewerage services charges and fees for the connection of the existing sewage
line to the available sewerage system. They seem to forget, however, that
receipt of these fees entailed the legal duty of actually and completely
installing the already long-delayed sewerage connections. Maynilad and
Manila Water still found space in their private contract to prolong compliance
thereto for fifteen more years. This Court cannot accept their highlighted
justifications therefor.

32
Related Cases: MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES, INC. (MAYNILAD),
Petitioner vs. THE SECRETARY OF THE DENR, et al G.R. No. 202897

“
RULING:
As earlier pointed out, the completion of the septage and sewerage
connections have already been lagging for fifteen years past the effectivity
of the Clean Water Act. There is no one else to blame but petitioners'
neglect. The public has already suffered because of this delay, and no
further extensions could possibly be accommodated without inflicting
additional disadvantage to the already aggrieved. Thus being stated, this
Court, also laboring under the Public Trust Doctrine, construes the MOA
between MWSS and Maynilad and the MOA between MWSS and Manila
Water as a complicit acknowledgment of their obstinate defiance of their
mandate under the Clean Water Act. Agreeing among themselves for a 15-
year extension will not cancel their long-running liability under Section 8 of
the Clean Water Act, in relation to Section 28 under the same law. A private
contract cannot promote business convenience to the unwarranted
disadvantage of public welfare and trust. With all said, petitioners' assertion
that the Agreements take primacy over a special law such as the Clean
Water Act is decimated. It is thus established that Section 8 of the Clean
Water Act demands unconditional compliance, and petitioners were
utterly remiss in that duty

33
Minerals
Article 519 of the Civil Code

34
519
Minerals
Mining claims and rights and other matters
concerning minerals and mineral lands are
governed by special laws. (427a)
“ Definition of Minerals :
Inorganic elements or substances
found in nature whether in gaseous,
liquid or solidified stage. Excluded are
the soil, ordinary earth, sand, stone,
and gravel. (Sec. 7, Com. Act No. 137)

36
“ Definition of Minerals:
Those where there are minerals
sufficient in quality and quantity to
justify expenses for their extraction.
(Sec. 8, Com. Act No. 137)

37
“-
Laws Governing Minerals:
Before July 1, 1902: The Spanish Mining Law
- Commonwealth Act 137
- Act 2719 (The Coal Act)
- R.A. 387 (The Petroleum Act of 1949)
- Act 2931 (Oil and Gas)
- The Mining Act 1995 or RA 7942

38
“ Ownership of Mineral Lands and Minerals

under the Constitution :

Sec 2 Article XII
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna,
and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources
shall not be alienated.

39
“
Ownership of Mineral Lands and Minerals
under the Constitution :
Sec 2 Article XII
The exploration, development, and
utilization of natural resources shall be
under the full control and supervision of the
State.

40
Related Cases: Republic of the Philippines (Director of Forest Development) VS.
Hon. Court of Appeals and Jose Y. De La Rosa G.R. No. L-43938 April 15, 1988

“
FACTS:
On February 11, 1965, Jose de la Rosa filed an application for registration of
parcel of land on his own behalf and on behalf of his three children, Victoria,
Benjamin and Eduardo. The land in question in this cse is situated in Tuding,
Itogon, Benguet Province was divided into 9 lots and covered by plan Psu-
225009. According to the application, lots 1-5 were sold to Jose de la Rosa and
lot 6-9 to his children by Mamaya Balbalio and Jaime Alberto, respectively in
1964. The application for registration was separately opposed by Benguet
Consolidated, Inc. as to lots 1-5, Atok Big Wedge Corporation and all of lots 6-9,
and by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Bureau of Forestry
Development, as to lots 1-9. Both Benguet Consolidated, Inc. and Atok Big
Wedge Corporation acquired the property in question before the approval of
Constitution of 1935. The Bureau of Forestry Development also interposed its
objection by arguing that the land in question was covered by Central Cordillera
Forest Reserve under Proclamation No. 217 dated February 16, 1929. Due to its
nature it was not subject to alienation under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973.

41
Related Cases:

1.
“
ISSUES:
Whether the land is mineral land or
agricultural land.
2. Who has the superior right of
ownership over the land in question?

42
Related Cases: Republic of the Philippines (Director of Forest Development) VS.
Hon. Court of Appeals and Jose Y. De La Rosa G.R. No. L-43938 April 15, 1988

“
RULING:

The Court ruled that the rights over the land

are indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half
agricultural and half mineral. The classification must
be categorical; the land must be either completely
mineral or completely agricultural. In this case the
land was originally classified as forest land ceased to
be and became mineral; once the mining claims
were perfected it became completely mineral

43
Related Cases: Republic of the Philippines (Director of Forest Development) VS.
Hon. Court of Appeals and Jose Y. De La Rosa G.R. No. L-43938 April 15, 1988

“
RULING::
The Supreme Court ruled, it is true that the subject property was
considered forest land and included in the Central Cordillera Forest
Reserve, but this did not impair the rights already vested in Benguet
and Atok. The June Bug mineral claim of Benguet and the Fredia
and Emma mineral claims of Atok having been perfected prior to the
approval of the Constitution of the Philippines of 1935, they were
removed from the public domain and had become private
properties of Benguet and Atok. The court favored Benguet and
Atok, since they have complied with the requirements of the mining
laws, the claims were removed from public domain and not even
the government of the Philippines can take away this right from
them without due process of law. De la Rosa failed to convince the
Supreme Court with sufficient evidence as the rightful owner of the

lots in question .

44