ANECO REALTY V LANDEX RTC first granted Aneco’s prayer for injuction based on White Plains Association v.

RTC first granted Aneco’s prayer for injuction based on White Plains Association v. Legaspi where in
Bundle of rights; Ownership
RECIT-READY:
Aneco filed a complaint for injuction v. its neighbor Landex to enjoin it from constructing a concrete
wall on its own property. SC dismissed the complaint. As owner of the land, Landex may fence his
property subject only to the limitations and restrictions provided by law. Absent a clear legal and
enforceable right, as here, Court will not interfere with the exercise of an essential attribute of
ownership.
the issue involved was the ownership of a road lot in a fully develop and authorized subdivision. Upon
Landex’s MR, it reversed its decision and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the property
involved here never exist as a subdivision. Consequently, the limitations imposed under RA 440 that
no portion of a subdivision road lot shall be closed w/o the approval of the Court. CA affirmed the same
since Aneco knew at the time of sale that the lots were sold by FHDI as ordinary slots based on the
express stipulation in the deed of sale.

FACTS:
 FHDI is the original owner of a tract of land subdivided into 39 lots, 22 of which were to sold
to Aneco and the remaining 17 to Landex. Landex started to construct a concrete wall on one
of its lots, prompting Aneco to file a complaint for injunction to restrain the construction and
for the demolition of the same.
 RTC: Complaint for injunction dismissed.
 CA: RTC affirmed.

ISSUE:
Whether Aneco may enjoin Landex from constructing a concrete wall on its own property.

HELD
No. Article 430 of the Civil Code gives every owner the right to enclose or fence his land or tenement
by means of walls, ditches, hedges or any other means. The right to fence flows from the right of
ownership.

As owner of the land, Landex may fence his property subject only to the limitations and restrictions
provided by law. Absent a clear legal and enforceable right, as here, the Court will not interfere with
the exercise of an essential attribute of ownership. CA affirmed.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the appealed Decision AFFIRMED.

Note: