PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY.

AMPIL) 13th week

Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|

1. CORTES v YU-TIBO

XXX the applicant agrees to respect an easement or

servitude over a portion of the lots No. 1 and 2 which is
EIGHT and ONE HALF (8-1/2) meters in lengthand the width
is ONE (1) meter, in order that the rainwater coming from
the roofing of a house to be constructed by the oppositor
over the ruins of her brick wallshall fall into the land of the
applicant.
Paredes constructed a new house, the roof was 2-1/2 meters
longer than the length allowed in the Decree of Registration,
and has an outer roofing (eaves) of 1.20 meters, protruding
over the lot of Purugganan, which is .20 meters wider than
that allowed, and the rainwater from the GI roofing falls
about 3 meters inside lots 1 and 2 of Purugganan.
Purugganan filed a case prohibiting Paredes from proceeding
with the construction of the roof, which exceeds the allowed
dimensions. Trial court, in a summary proceeding decided in
favor of Purugganan. CA affirmed.

FACTS:
Easement disputed here is the easement of light and view.
Plaintiffs wife has certain windows on her property which
open on the adjacent lot. It has been established that the
plaintiffs hasnt done any formal act prohibiting the owner of
the house of the adjacent house prohibiting them to make
any improvements. Plaintiff claims that period of prescription
started when those windows were made and acknowledge by
the owner of the adjacent lot. Defendant however claims
that there should be a formal act prohibiting them from doing
a certain act to trigger the prescriptive period.
ISSUE: W/N plaintiffs have acquired the easement through
prescription?
RULING: NO.

ISSUE: W/N the easement of drainage refers to the measure

of the roofing?

GENERAL RULE: No partowner can, without the consent of the

other, make in a party wall a window or opening of any kind
(Art. 580)

HELD: No.
Paredes have made a mistake in applying the distances
prescribed in the decree of registration to the roofing of their
house. They failed to comprehend the meaning of the phrase
servidumbre de vertiente de los tejados constituted on the
land of Purugganan. Translated, it means the easement of
receiving water falling from the roof which is an
encumbrance imposed on the land of Purugganan because the
encumbrance is not the roof itself but the rain water falling
inside the property of Purugganan. The report submitted by
the court-appointed commissioner clearly shows that Paredes
exceeded the dimension allowed in the decree of
registration.

The very fact of making such opening in such a wall may be

the basis for acquisition of a prescriptive title without the
necessity of any active opposition because it always
presupposes the express or implied consent of the owner of
the wall, which in time, implies a voluntary waiver of the
right to oppose.
EXCEPTION: When the windows are not opened on the
neighbor's side, there is need of a prohibition from exercising
that neighbor's right to build on his land or cover the closed
window on the party wall.
The period of prescription starts to run from such prohibition
if the neighbor consents to it.

3. VALISNO V. ADRIANO
Water rights, such as the right to use a drainage ditch for
irrigation purposes, which are appurtenant to a parcel of
land, pass with the conveyance of the land, although not
specifically mentioned in the conveyance. The
purchaser's easement of necessity in a water ditch
running across the grantor's land cannot be defeated
even if the water is supplied by a third person.

Note: The law refers to all kinds of windows, even regulation

windows. According to article 528, windows with "similar
projections" include sheds.
The exception applies in this case because
1) what is concerned is a party wall;
2) there was no prohibition on Yu-Tibo to build anything that
would cover the Cortes' window (Yu-Tibo wanted to raise his
roof which would in effect cover 1/2 of the window).

FACTS:
Plaintiff is the absolute owner and actual possessor of a land
in Nueva Ecija, with TCT No. NT-16281. He bought the land
from the respondents sister, Honorata Adriano Francisco.
The land which is planted with watermelon, peanuts, corn,
tobacco, and other vegetables adjoins that of the respondent
Adriano on the bank of the Pampanga River. Both parcels of
land had been inherited by Honorata and Felipe from their
father. At the time of the sale of the land to Valisno, the land
was irrigated by water from the Pampanga River through a
canal about seventy (70) meters long, traversing the
Respondent's land.

2. PURUGGANAN V. PAREDES, 69 SCRA 69

In an easement of receiving rainwater, the distances
prescribed in the decree of registration should not
correspond to the width and length of the roof of the
house but on the distance of the rainwater falling inside
the land of the servient estate.
FACTS:
Purugganan is the owner of a piece of residential lot adjacent
to and bounded on the north by the lot of Paredes. The lot of
Purugganan is subject to an easement of drainage in favor of
Paredes annotated in the Decree of registration, which read
in part:

In 1959, Respondent levelled a portion of the irrigation canal

so that Plaintiff was deprived of the irrigation water and
prevented from cultivating his 57-hectare land.
Plaintiff filed in the Bureau of Public Works and
Communications a complaint for deprivation of water rights.
1

PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 13th week

Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|

A decision was rendered ordering Adriano to reconstruct the

irrigation canal. Instead of restoring the irrigation canal, the
appellee asked for a reinvestigation of the case by the Bureau
of Public Works and Communications. A reinvestigation was
granted.

does detract from its permanency as property right, which

survives the determination of the necessity.
As an easement of waters in favor of the appellant has been
established, he is entitled to enjoy it free from obstruction,
disturbance or wrongful interference, such as the appellee's
act of levelling the irrigation canal to deprive him of the use
of water from the Pampanga River.

In the meantime, Plaintiff rebuilt the irrigation canal at his

own expense because his need for water to irrigate his
watermelon fields was urgent.

4. TRIAS V ARANETA
Sellers of land may validly impose reasonable easements and
restrictions as conditions for contracts of sales; the same
may not be overturned by courts merely on the ground that it
impacts dominical rights.

Later, he filed a complaint for damages in the RTC claiming

that he suffered damages when he failed to plant his fields
that yearfor lack of irrigation water, and when he
reconstructed the canal.
Meanwhile,
the
Secretary
of
Public
Works
and
Communications reversed the Bureau's decision by issuing a
final resolution dismissing Valisno's complaint. The Secretary
held that Eladio Adriano's water rights which had been
granted in 1923 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 five years
extinguished the grant by operation of law, hence the water
rights did not form part of his hereditary estate which his
heirs partitioned among themselves.

FACTS:
JM Tuason and Co. owned a piece of land that was part of a
subdivision. Thru broker Araneta Inc (of Araneta Coliseum
fame), this civic-minded company sold the land to Mr Lopez
with the condition that said lot should never be used to erect
a factory. This imposition was annotated to the TCT.
A series of transfers and conveyances later, the lot ended up
in the hands of the gorgeous Ms. Rafael Trias. She was
dismayed with the annotation that stated 5. That no
factories be permitted in this section.

ISSUE: W/N Plaintiff has acquired the easement of water over

Respondents land

Ms. Trias felt that the annotation impaired her dominical

rights and therefore illegal and existed as mere surplusage
since existing zoning regulations already prevented the
erection of factories in the vicinity. Worse, the annotation
possibly hindered her plans to obtain a loan. She accordingly
raised the issue to the court and received relief.

RULING: Yes.
The existence of the irrigation canal on Respondents land for
the passage of water from the Pampanga River to Honorata's
land prior to and at the time of the sale of Honorata's land to
the plaintiff was equivalent to a title for the vendee of the
land to continue using it as provided in Article 624 of the Civil
Code (Doctrine of Apparent Sign):
Article 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
he
easement
may
continue actively and passively, unless at the time,
theownership 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.

Later on, Gregorio Araneta moved for reconsideration stating

that the imposition resulted from a valid sales transaction
between her predecessors in interest. He alleged that the
court held no authority to overrule such valid easement and
impaired the right to contract.
ISSUE: w/n the imposition was valid.
HELD:
The imposition was valid. The prohibition is an easement
validly imposed under art 594 which provides that every
owner of a piece of land may establish easements he deems
suitable xxx and not in contravention to the law, public policy
and public order

The deed of sale in favor of Plaintiff included the

"conveyance and transfer of the water rights and
improvements" appurtenant to Honorata's property. According
to the Plaintiff, the water right was the primary
consideration for his purchase of Honorata's property, for
without it the property would be unproductive.

The court ruled that the easement existed to safeguard the

peace and quiet of neighboring residents. The intention is
noble and the objectives benign. In the absence of a clash
with public policy, the easement may not be eroded.
The contention of surplusage is also immaterial. Zoning
regulations may be repealed anytime, allowing the erection
of factories. With the annotation, at the very least, the
original intent to bar factories remains binding.

Water rights, such as the right to use a drainage ditch for

irrigation purposes, which are appurtenant to a parcel of
land, pass with the conveyance of the land, although not
specifically mentioned in the conveyance. The purchaser's
easement of necessity in a water ditch running across the
grantor's land cannot be defeated even if the water is
supplied by a third person. The fact that an easement by
grant may also have qualified as an easement of necessity

5. LA VISTA ASSOCIATION, INC v CA

Like any other contractual stipulation, a voluntary easement
cannot be extinguished except by voluntary recession of the
2

PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 13th week

Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|

contract establishing the servitude or renunciation by the

owner of the dominant lots.
FACTS:
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 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
AdMUs 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.
ISSUES: W/N there is an easement of right of way?
RULING: YES.
There was a voluntary easement of right of way which was
acknowledged on January 1976 by the Tuasons and Admu (the
easement was established by PBC and the Tuasons but I dont
think I can find the details regarding it in the case I just saw
the one regarding acknowledgement between admu and
the Tuasons.) Being such, the 4 requisites for a compulsory
easement need not be met. And like any other contractual
stipulation, the same cannot be extinguished except by
voluntary recession of the contract establishing the
servitude or renunciation by the owner of the dominant
lots. In the case at bar, all the predecessors-in-interest of
both parties recognized the existence of such easement and
there was no agreement yet to revoke the same. The free
ingress and egress along Mangyan Road created by the
voluntary agreement is thus demandable.
The Court also emphasized that they are not creating an
easement but merely declaring one (there no such thing as
a judicial easement)