Easements; Right of Way; Requisites (1996)

David is the owner of the subdivision in Sta. Rosa, Laguna,

without an access to the highway. When he applied for a

license to establish the subdivision, David represented that

he will purchase a rice field located between his land and the

highway, and develop it into an access road. But. when the

license was already granted, he did not bother to buy the

rice field, which remains unutilized until the present.

Instead, he chose to connect his subdivision with the

neighboring subdivision of Nestor, which has an access to

the highway. Nestor allowed him to do this, pending

negotiations on the compensation to be paid. When they

failed to arrive at an agreement, Nestor built a wall across

the road connecting with David's subdivision. David filed a

complaint in court, for the establishment of an easement of

right of way through the subdivision of Nestor which he

claims to be the most adequate and practical outlet to the

highway.

1) What are the requisites for the establishment of a

compulsory easement of a right of way?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Art, 649, NCC. The owner, or any person who by virtue of

a real right may cultivate or use any immovable which is

surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other

persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is

entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring

estates, after payment of the property indemnity.

Should this easement be established in such a manner that

its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant

estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall

consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of

the damage caused to the servient estate.

In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage

for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and

for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate

without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the

payment of the damage cause by such encumbrance.

This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the

immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts. (564a).

The easement of right of way shall be established at the

point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as

consistent with this rule, where the distance from the

dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest

(Art. 650, NCC: Vda. de Baltazar v. CA. 245 SCRA 333}

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The requisites for a compulsory easement of right of way

are: (a) the dominant estate is surrounded by other

immovables and is without an adequate outlet to a public

street or highway; (b) proper indemnity must be paid; (c) the

isolation must not be due to the acts of the owner of the

dominant estate; and (d) the right of way claimed is at a

point least prejudicial to the servient estate and, insofar as

extinguished by the registration of the servient estate.

However, this provision has been suppressed in Section 44,

PD No. 1529. In other words, the registration of the

servient estate did not operate to cut-off or extinguish the

right of way. Therefore, the complaint for the cancellation

of the right of way should be dismissed.

Easements; Right of Way; Requisites (1996)

David is the owner of the subdivision in Sta. Rosa, Laguna,

without an access to the highway. When he applied for a

license to establish the subdivision, David represented that

he will purchase a rice field located between his land and the

highway, and develop it into an access road. But. when the

license was already granted, he did not bother to buy the

rice field, which remains unutilized until the present.

Instead, he chose to connect his subdivision with the

neighboring subdivision of Nestor, which has an access to

the highway. Nestor allowed him to do this, pending

negotiations on the compensation to be paid. When they

failed to arrive at an agreement, Nestor built a wall across

the road connecting with David's subdivision. David filed a

complaint in court, for the establishment of an easement of

right of way through the subdivision of Nestor which he

claims to be the most adequate and practical outlet to the

highway.

1) What are the requisites for the establishment of a

compulsory easement of a right of way?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Art, 649, NCC. The owner, or any person who by virtue of

a real right may cultivate or use any immovable which is

surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other

persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is

entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring

estates, after payment of the property indemnity.

Should this easement be established in such a manner that

its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant

estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall

consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of

the damage caused to the servient estate.

In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage

for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and

for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate

without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the

payment of the damage cause by such encumbrance.

This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the

immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts. (564a).

The easement of right of way shall be established at the

point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as

consistent with this rule, where the distance from the

dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest

(Art. 650, NCC: Vda. de Baltazar v. CA. 245 SCRA 333}

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The requisites for a compulsory easement of right of way

are: (a) the dominant estate is surrounded by other

immovables and is without an adequate outlet to a public

street or highway; (b) proper indemnity must be paid; (c) the

isolation must not be due to the acts of the owner of the

dominant estate; and (d) the right of way claimed is at a

point least prejudicial to the servient estate and, insofar as is

consistent with this rule, where the distance to the street or

highway is shortest.

2) Is David entitled to a right of way in this case? Why or

why not?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, David is not entitled to the right of way being claimed.

The isolation of his subdivision was due to his own act or

omission because he did not develop into an access road the

rice field which he was supposed to purchase according to

his own representation when he applied for a license to

establish the subdivision (Floro us. Llenado, 244 SCRA713)

Hidden Treasures (1997)

Marcelino, a treasure hunter as just a hobby, has found a

map which appears to indicate the location of hidden

treasure. He has an idea of the land where the treasure

might possibly be found. Upon inquiry, Marcelino learns

that the owner of the land, Leopoldo, is a permanent

resident of Canada, Nobody, however, could give him

Leopoldo's exact address. Ultimately, anyway, he enters the

land and conducts a search. He succeeds.

Leopoldo learning of Marcelino's "find", seeks to recover

the treasure from Marcelino but the latter is not willing to

part with it. Failing to reach an agreement, Leopoldo sues

Marcelino for the recovery of the property. Marcelino

contests the action.

How would you decide the case?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I would decide in favor of Marcelino since he is considered

a finder by chance of the hidden treasure, hence, he is

entitled to one-half (1/2) of the hidden treasure. While

Marcelino may have had the intention to look for the

hidden treasure, still he is a finder by chance since it is

enough that he tried to look for it. By chance in the law

does not mean sheer luck such that the finder should have

no intention at all to look for the treasure. By chance means

good luck, implying that one who intentionally looks for the

treasure is embraced in the provision. The reason is that it is

extremely difficult to find hidden treasure without looking

for it deliberately.

Marcelino is not a trespasser since there is no prohibition

for him to enter the premises, hence, he is entitled to half of

the treasure.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:

1. Marcelino did not find the treasure by chance because

he had a map, he knew the location of the hidden treasure

and he intentionally looked for the treasure, hence, he is not

entitled to any part of the treasure.

2. Marcelino appears to be a trespasser and although there

may be a question of whether he found it by chance or not,

as he has found the hidden treasure by means of a treasure

map, he will not be entitled to a finder's share. The hidden

treasure shall belong to the owner.

3. The main rule is that hidden treasure belongs to the

owner of the land, building or other property on which it is

found. If it is found by chance by a third person and he is

not a trespasser, he is entitled to one-half (1/2). If he is a

trespasser, he loses everything

Property; Real vs. Personal Property (1997)

Pedro is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in

Malolos, Bulacan. In 1973, he mortgaged the land to the

Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan of

P100.000.00. For Pedro's failure to pay the loan, the PNB

foreclosed on the mortgage in 1980, and the land was sold

at public auction to PNB for being the highest bidder. PNB

secured title thereto in 1987.

In the meanwhile, Pedro, who was still in possession of the

land, constructed a warehouse on the property. In 1988, the

PNB sold the land to Pablo, the Deed of Sale was amended

in 1989 to include the warehouse.

Pedro, claiming ownership of the warehouse, files a

complaint to annul the amended Deed of Sale before the

Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, where he resides,

against both the PNB and Pablo. The PNB filed a motion

to dismiss the complaint for improper venue contending

that the warehouse is real property under Article 415(1) of

the Civil Code and therefore the action should have instead

been filed in Malolos, Bulacan. Pedro claims otherwise. The

question arose as to whether the warehouse should be

considered as real or as personal property

If consulted, what would your legal advice be?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The warehouse which is a construction adhered to the soil is

an immovable by nature under Art. 415 (1) and the proper

venue of any case to recover ownership of the same, which

is what the purpose of the complaint to annul the amended

Deed of Sale amounts to, should be the place where the

property is located, or the RTC of Bulacan.

ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:

1. Buildings are always immovable property, and even in

the instances where the parties to a contract seem to have

dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it

stood in no wise does it change its character as immovable

property. A building is an immovable even if not erected by

the owner of the land. The only criterion is union or

incorporation with the soil. (Ladera vs. Hodges (CA) 48

O.G. 4374) (Reyes and Puno, Outline of Philippine Civil Law,

Vol. 2. p.7)

2. The warehouse built by Pedro on the mortgaged

property is real property within the context of Article 415 of

the New Civil Code, although it was built by Pedro after the

foreclosure sale without the knowledge and consent of the

new owner which makes him a builder in bad faith, this

does not alter the character of the warehouse as a real

property by incorporation. It is a structure which cannot be

removed without causing injury to the land. So, my advice

to Pedro is to file the case with the RTC of Bulacan, the

situs of the property,

(Note: If the examinee does not mention that the structure was

built by a builder in bad faith, it should be given full credit)

Usufruct (1997)

On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of a building,

granted Petronila a usufruct over the property until 01 June

1998 when Manuel, a son of Petronila, would have reached

his 30th birthday. Manuel, however, died on 1 June 1990

when he was only 26 years old.

Minerva notified Petronila that the usufruct had been

extinguished by the death of Manuel and demanded that thelatter vacate the premises and deliver the

same to the

former. Petronila refused to vacate the place on the ground

that the usufruct in her favor would expire only on 1 June

1998 when Manuel would have reached his 30th birthday

and that the death of Manuel before his 30th birthday did

not extinguish the usufruct.

Whose contention should be accepted?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Petronila's contention is correct. Under Article 606 of the

Civil Code, a usufruct granted for the time that may elapse

before a third person reaches a certain age shall subsist for

the number of years specified even if the third person

should die unless there is an express stipulation in the

contract that states otherwise. In the case at bar, there is no

express stipulation that the consideration for the usufruct is

the existence of Petronila's son. Thus, the general rule and

not the exception should apply in this case.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

This is a usufruct which is clearly intended for the benefit of

Manuel until he reaches 30 yrs. of age with Petronila serving

only as a conduit, holding the property in trust for his

benefit. The death of Manuel at the age of 26 therefore,

terminated the usufruct.