133 - Property - La Vista v. CA

133. La Vista Association, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 95252, September 5, 1997
Bellosillo, J.:
FACTS:
MANGYAN ROAD is a 15-meter wide thoroughfare in QC abutting Katipunan Ave. on the west,
The controversy in this case is regarding the right of way in Manyan road. The road is a 15 meter
wide road abutting Katipunan Avenue on the west, traverses the edges of La Vista Subdivision
on the north and of the Ateneo de Manila University (AdMU) and Maryknoll College on the south.
The said road was originally owned by the Tuasons sold a portion of their land to Philippine
Building Corporation. Included in such sale was half or 7.5 meters width of the Mangyan road.
The said corporation assigned its rights, with the consent of the tuasons, to AdMU through a Deed
of Assignment with Assumption of Mortgage. Ateneo later on sold to Maryknoll the western portion
of the land. Tuason developed their land which is now known as La Vista. On January, 1976,
Ateneo and La Vista acknowledged the voluntary easement or a Mutual right of way wherein the
parties would allow the other to use their half portion of the Manyan road (La Vista to use AdMU’s
7.5 meters of the Mangyan road and also the other way around.) Ateneo auctioned off the property
wherein Solid Homes Inc., the developer of Loyola Grand Villas, was the highest bidder.
ADMU transferred not only the property, but also the right to negotiate the easement on the road.
However, La Vista did not want to recognize the easement thus they block the road using 6
cylindrical concrete and some guards over the entrance of the road blocking the entrance of the
residents of Loyola Grand Villas. Solid Homes Inc. filed for injunction and La vista in turn filed a
third party complaint against AdMU. Some of the arguments of the petitioner were that Loyola
residents had adequate outlet to a public highway using other roads and also that AdMU has not
yet finalized the negotiation of the easement.
ISSUE:
Is there an easement of right-of-way over Mangyan Road?
HELD:
YES, there was a voluntary easement of right of way which was acknowledged on January 1976
by the Tuasons and Admu.
From the facts of the instant case it is very apparent that the parties and their respective
predecessors-in-interest intended to establish an easement of right-of-way over Mangyan Road
for their mutual benefit, both as dominant and servient estates. This is contained in their
contractual stipulations in the deed of sale between the Tuason Family and the PBC which were
incorporated in the deed of assignment with assumption of mortgage by the PBC in favor of
Ateneo as well as in the deed of sale dated October 24, 1976 when the property was ultimately
transferred by Ateneo to plaintiff-appellee. Like any other contractual stipulation, the same cannot
be extinguished except by voluntary rescission of the contract establishing the servitude or
renunciation by the owner of the dominant lots.
The free ingress and egress along Mangyan Road created by the voluntary agreement between
Ateneo and Solid Homes, Inc., is thus legally demandable (Articles 619 and 625, New Civil Code)
with the corresponding duty on the servient estate not to obstruct the same so much so that –
When the owner of the servient tenement performs acts or constructs works impairing the use of
the servitude, the owner of the dominant tenement may ask for the destruction of such works and
the restoration of the things to their condition before the impairment was committed, with
indemnity for damages suffered. An injunction may also be obtained in order to restrain the owner
of the servient tenement from obstructing or impairing in any manner the lawful use of the
servitude.
The argument of petitioner LA VISTA that there are other routes to LOYOLA from Mangyan Road
is likewise meritless, to say the least. The opening of an adequate outlet to a highway can
extinguish only legal or compulsory easements, not voluntary easements like in the case at bar.
The fact that an easement by grant may have also qualified as an easement of necessity does
not detract from its permanency as a property right, which survives the termination of the
necessity.
In sum, when the easement in this case was established by contract, the parties unequivocally
made provisions for its observance by all who in the future might succeed them in dominion.
NOTE:
Resultantly, when the court says that an easement exists, it is not creating one. For, even an
injunction cannot be used to create one as there is no such thing as a judicial easement. As in
the instant case, the court merely declares the existence of an easement created by the parties.

133 - Property - La Vista v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

133 - Property - La Vista v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

133 - Property - La Vista v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

133. La Vista Association, Inc. v.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.