LEOGARIO RONQUILLO, ET AL. vs. JOSE ROCO, ET AL. G.R. No.

L-10619
February 28, 1958
FACTS: The plaintiffs alleged that they have been in the continuous and
uninterrupted use of a road or passage way which traversed the land of the
defendants and their predecessors in interest, in going to Igualdad Street and the
market place of Naga City, from their residential land and back, for more than 20
years. Plaintiffs further claim that defendants have long recognized and respected
the private legal easement of road right of way of the former. On May 12, 1953, the
defendants and their men constructed a chapel in the middle of the said right of
way which, accordingly has impeded, obstructed and disturbed the continuous
exercise of the rights of the plaintiffs over said right of way. On July 10, 1954
defendants planted wooden posts, fenced with barbed wire and closed hermitically
the road passage way and their right of way against the plaintiffs protests and
opposition. This prevented them from going to or coming from their homes to
Igualdad Street and the public market of the City of Naga.
ISSUE: Whether an easement of right of way can be acquired thru prescription.
HELD: An easement of right of way though it may be apparent is, nevertheless,
discontinuous or intermittent and, therefore, cannot be acquired through
prescription, but only by virtue of a title. Under the New Civil Code, easements may
be continuous discontinuous (intermittent), apparent or non-apparent,
discontinuous being those used at more or less long intervals and which depend
upon acts of man (Articles 615). Continuous and apparent easements are acquired
either, by title or prescription, continuous non-apparent easements and
discontinuous ones whether apparent or not, may be acquired only by virtue of a
title (Articles 620 and 622) Under the provisions of the Civil Code, particularly the
articles thereof aforecited, it would therefore appear that the easement of right of
way may not be acquired through prescription. Even Article 1959 of the Old Civil
Code providing for prescription of ownership and other real rights in real property,
excludes therefrom the exception established by Article 539, referring to
discontinuous easements, such as, easement of right of way. (Bargayo vs.
Camumot, 40 Phil., 857, 867). Further, in the case of Cuayong vs. Benedicto, (37
Phil., 781) where the point in issue was whether or not vested rights in a right of
way can be acquired through user from time immemorial,

TANEDO V. BERNAD
165 SCRA 86

FACTS: The private respondent Antonio Cardenas was the owner of two (2)
contiguous parcels of land situated in Cebu City which he had inherited from
Lourdes Cardenas. On Lot 7501-A is constructed an apartment building, while the

improvements on Lot 7501-B consist of one four-door apartment of concrete and

strong materials; one two-storey house of strong materials; a bodega of strong
materials; and a septic tank for the common use of the occupants of Lots 7501-A
and 7501-B. A small portion of the apartment building on Lot 7501-A also stands on
Lot 7501-B.

On 5 February 1982, said Antonio Cardenas sold Lot 7501-A to herein petitioner
Eduardo C. Taedo.

Antonio Cardenas, on that same day, also mortgaged Lot 7501-B to said Eduardo C.
Taedo as a security for the payment of a loan in the amount of P10,000.00.

Antonio Cardenas further agreed that he would sell Lot 7501-B only to Eduardo
Taedo in case he should decide to sell it, as the septic tank in Lot 7501-B services
Lot 7501-A and the apartment building on Lot 7501-A has a part standing on Lot
7501-B. This was confirmed in a letter, dated 26 February 1982, wherein Antonio
Cardenas asked Taedo not to deduct the mortgage loan of P10,000.00 from the
purchase price of Lot 7501-A "because as we have previously agreed, I will sell to
you Lot 7501-B."

Antonio Cardenas, however, sold Lot 7501-B to the herein respondent spouses
Romeo and Pacita Sim. 4 Upon learning of the sale, Eduardo Taedo offered to
redeem the property from Romeo Sim. But the latter refused. Instead, Romeo Sim
blocked the sewage pipe connecting the building of Eduardo Taedo built on Lot
7501-A, to the septic tank in Lot 7501-B. He also asked Taedo to remove that
portion of his building enroaching on Lot 7501-B. As a result, Eduardo Taedo,
invoking the provisions of Art. 1622 of the Civil Code, filed an action for legal
redemption and damages, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction, before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, docketed therein as Civil Case
No. CEB-994, against the spouses Romeo and Pacita Sim, Antonio Cardenas and his
wife Mae Linda Cardenas, the Register of Deeds of Cebu City, and Banco Cebuano,
Cebu City Development Bank.

Answering, the spouses Romeo and Pacita Sim claimed that they are the absolute
owners of Lot 7501-B and that Eduardo Taedo has no right to redeem the land
under Art. 1622 of the Civil Code as the land sought to be redeemed is much bigger
than the land owned by Taedo. Antonio Cardenas, upon the other hand, admitted
that he had agreed to sell Lot 7501-B to Eduardo Taedo and claimed by way of
cross-claim against the spouses Romeo and Pacita Sim that the Deed of Sale he had

executed in favor of said spouses was only intended as an equitable mortgage, to

secure the payment of amounts received by him from said spouses as petty loans .

In answer to the cross-claim, the spouses Romeo and Pacita Sim insisted that the
sale executed by Antonio Cardenas of Lot 7501-B in their favor was an absolute one.

ISSUE: WON the easement of septic tank is extinguish by the sale of the lot to the
respondent spouses. NEGATIVE. In the deed of sale it it was not stated that the
easement was abolished nor did Antonio Cardenas stopped its use. Its use
continued by operation of law even after the sale

RATIO DICIDENDI:

As can be seen from the above provisions, the alienation of the dominant and
servient estates to different persons is not one of the grounds for the
extinguishment of an easement. On the contrary, use of the easement is continued
by operation of law. Article 624 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 624. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates,
established or maintained by the owner of both, shall be considered, should either
of them be alienated, as a title in order that the easement may continue actively
and passively, unless, at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the
contrary should be provided in the title of conveyance of either of them, or the sign
aforesaid should be removed before the execution of the deed. This provision shall
also apply in case of the division of a thing owned in common by two or more
persons.

n the instant case, no statement abolishing or extinguishing the easement of

drainage was mentioned in the deed of sale of Lot 7501-A to Eduardo Taedo. Nor
did Antonio Cardenas stop the use of the drain pipe and septic tank by the
occupants of Lot 7501-A before he sold said lot to Eduardo Tafiedo. Hence, the use
of the septic tank is continued by operation of law. Accordingly, the spouses Romeo
and Pacita Sim the new owners of the servient estate (Lot 7501- B), cannot impair,
in any manner whatsoever, the use of the servitude.e Court held that no
discontinuous easement could be acquired by prescription in any event
COSTABELLA CORP. VS. CA- Easement Right of Way

The convenience of the dominant estate is not the gauge for the grant of
compulsory right of way but rather, it should satisfy all four requisites (emphasis on
1st requisite- it should be merely for convenience but it must be due to the fact that
the dominant estate does not have an adequate outlet to a public highway.

FACTS:
Petitioners owned a lot wherein they started constructing their beach hotel. Before
such construction, the private respondent, in going to and from their respective
properties and the provincial road, passed through a passageway which traversed
the petitioners property. As a result of the construction, this passageway, including
the alternative route, was obstructed. Private respondent filed for injunction plus
damages. In the same complaint the private respondents also alleged that the
petitioner had constructed a dike on the beach fronting the latters property without
the necessary permit, obstructing the passage of the residents and local fishermen,
and trapping debris of flotsam on the beach. The private respondent also claim that
the have acquired the right of way through prescription. They prayed for the reopening of the ancient road right of way (what they called the supposed
easement in this case) and the destruction of the dike. Petitioner answered by
saying that their predecessor in interests act of allowing them to pass was
gratuitous and in fact, they were just tolerating the use of the private respondents.
CA ruled in favor of the private respondents.

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not easement of right and way can be acquired through prescription?
2) Whether or not the private respondents had acquired an easement of right of
way in the form of a passageway, on the petitioners property?

RULING:
1) NO. Easement of right of way is discontinuous thus it cannot be subject to
acquisitive prescription.
2) NO. one may validly claim an easement of right of way when he has proven the:
(1) the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate
outlet to a public highway; (2) proper indemnity has been paid; (3) the isolation was
not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate; (4) the right of way claimed
is at point least prejudicial to the servient estate. The private respondent failed to
prove that there is no adequate outlet from their respective properties to a public
highway; in fact the lower court confirmed that there is another outlet for the
private respondents to the main road (yet they ruled in favor of the private

respondents). Apparently, the CA lost sight of the fact that the convenience of the
dominant estate was never a gauge for the grant of compulsory right of way. There
must be a real necessity and not mere convenience for the dominant estate to
acquire such easement. Also, the private respondents made no mention of their
intention to indemnify the petitioners. The SC also clarified that least prejudicial
prevails over shortest distance (so shortest distance isnt necessarily the best
choice.)