1
CHAPTER VII—EASEMENT
CASE FACTS/ ISSUE
Kinds of Easements—Real and Personal Servitudes
Jabonete v Monteverde - In a case before the CFI of Davao, the court held - the easement of right of way was expressly limited the right of way to Jabonete, et. al. and their family, friends, drivers,
Alcantara v Reta Jr
Public and Private Easements
North Negros Sugar Co v
Hidalgo
Inseparability of Easement
Valisno v Adriano
RULING
that Antonio Legaspi acquired a lot with the servants and jeeps. The lower court, as well as the parties addressed by the said order, did not intend the same to
knowledge that an easement existed thereon in pass on to the plaintiffs' successors-in-interest. The right acquired by the original plaintiffs was a personal servitude,
favor of Jabonete’s and the other plaintiffs’ not a predial servitude that inures to the benefit of whoever owns the dominant estate
repair shop.
- The lower court ordered the opening of a
sufficient passage for persons and vehicles on
Legaspi’s fence. When plaintiffs transferred their
repair shop to another location, Legaspi
reconstructed his fence. Later, DBP foreclosed
plaintiff’s lot and conveyed the property in a
conditional sale to Luz Arcilla. The latter asked
Legaspi to reopen his fence but he refused.
- Alcantara claimed that they were tenants of the - Alcanata failed to present proof of a lease agreement. In the case of Roble, Reta allowed him to use 62 coconut trees
land. Reta, the registered owner, had converted for P186 from where he gathered tuba. This arrangement is a usufruct. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of
the land into a commercial center and was another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise
threatening to eject them. provides. Roble was allowed to construct his house on the land because it would facilitate his gathering of tuba. This
- Plaintiffs assert that they have the right of first would be in the nature of a personal easement under Article 614 of the Civil Code. A usufruct is not a lease and Roble
refusal to purchase the land in accordance with is not a lessee
Section 3(g) of Presidential Decree No. 1517.
Alcanatara and Ricardo Roble further claim that
they are lessees. Reta claimed that the land is
beyond the ambit of PD 1517 since it has not
been proclaimed as an Urban Land Reform Zone.
- North Negros Sugar Co. (NNSC) owned a sugar - Hidalgo's passage over NNSC’s property does not constitute an unlawful act since the company had opened the road
mill, as well as the adjoining Hacienda Begoña. It to the public conditioned only upon the payment of transit fees by motor vehicles. When a private road has been
built a road to connect the mill site with the thrown open to public use, no action for trespass is maintainable against any person who desires to make use thereof;
provincial highway. The company allowed - The legal rule is that what the law does not authorize to be done directly cannot be done indirectly. If NNSC cannot
vehicles to pass after paying a toll of P0.15. judicially enjoin the defendant from selling tuba, neither can it obtain an injunction to prevent him from passing over
Pedestrians were allowed free passage. its property.
- Immediately adjoining the mill site was Hacienda - This case involves an easement of way voluntarily constituted in favor of a community. Under the Civil Code, the
Sañgay. Hidalgo owned a billiard hall and a tuba owner is given ample liberty to establish them: "as he may deem fit, and in such manner and form as he may consider
saloon within the latter compound. He used to desirable." Once established, the owner cannot deny its existence. While the road is thrown open, NNSC may not
pass through NNSC’s road because it was his only capriciously exclude Hidalgo from its use. The road in question being a public utility, or, to be more exact, a private
means of access. However, by order of the property affected with a public interest, is not lawful to make arbitrary exceptions with respect to its use and
company, he was prevented from using the road enjoyment
every time he drove an automobile with a cargo
of tuba.
- The parties own adjoining fields on the bank of - Water rights pass with the conveyance of land, even if they are not explicitly stated. It was the primary consideration
the Pampanga River. Nicolas Valisno bought his for Valisno’s purchase of Honorata's property, for without it the property would be unproductive.
land from Felipe Adriano’s sister Honorata. At - The existence of the irrigation canal prior to and at the time of the sale is equivalent to a title for the vendee of the
the time of the sale, the land was irrigated by a land to continue using it. As an easement has been established, Valisno is entitled to enjoy it free from obstruction,
canal about 70 meters long, which traversed disturbance or wrongful interference
Adriano’s land. The latter leveled a portion of the
irrigation canal, thereby depriving Valisno of the
water. A decision was rendered, ordering
VANILLAELA
 2

Adriano to reconstruct the canal. Meanwhile,
Valisno rebuilt the irrigation canal at his own
expense.
- Adriano's water rights ceased to be enjoyed by
him in 1936 or 1937, when his irrigation canal
collapsed. His non-use of the water right since
then for a period of more than 5 years
extinguished the grant by operation of law.
Hence, the water rights did not form part of his
hereditary estate. Felipe Adriano further claimed
that he obtained water rights for his land alone.
He merely allowed his sister to use his water
rights when she still owned the adjacent land
Modes of Acquiring Easements (Can right of way be acquired through prescription?)
Bomedco v CA - -
Concurring Opinion of JBL - -
Reyes in Ronquillo et al v Jose
Roco
Existence of An Apparent Sign of Easement
Eduardo Tanedo v Bernad et al - -
Rights and Obligations of Owners of Dominant and Servient Estates
Valderama v North Negros - -
Sugar Central
Modes of Extinguishment of Easement
Solid Manila Corp v Bio Hong - -
Trading Co. Inc

VANILLAELA