Case-Digest-Easements.docx

Dumangas v. Bishop of Jaro, 34 Phil. 541 G.R. No. L1077, !ar"h #$, 1$1%

&a"'s(

 The municipality of Dumangas, Province Province of Iloilo, petitioned the CFI of Ilo-Ilo the registration of six parcels of land totalling 41 sm land is located in the !arrio of  !ala"ag, Dumangas, Iloilo Iloilo of #hich said municipality municipality claimed to "e the the a"solute o#ner and in possession possession since time immemorial$ immemorial$  The application for registration registration #as opposed "y the %o %oman man Catholic !ishop of   &aro$  &aro$ They contend that the said lots l ots a"solutely and exclusively exclusively "elonged to the %om oman an Ca Catho tholic lic 'posto 'postolic lic Chur Church, ch, #hich #hich had "een "een in uiet uiet and and peacea peacea"le "le possession of same since time immemorial$ It to have "een duly proven that the disputed lot 1 of parcel 4, is ad(acent to the same #all that forms the side of the church in #hich there is a side door that serves as passage passage for the faithful faithful and that in order to do so so they are compelled compelled to cross the su"(ect land$ !ut, I is also conclusively proven that the )un$ of Dumangas has "een in the poss posses essi sion on of the the lot lot and and have have perf perfor orme med d ther thereo eon n acts acts of undi undisp sput uta" a"le le o#nership * erecting +ag sta, use of land as corral, a place for posting posters, "uilding a theater, a school and even a cocpit and a "illiard hall$ 't present private several houses are erected "y private parties #ho pays rental to the )unicipality$ )ssu*( +ho ons 'h* lan- +ha' righ' -o*s 'h* /hur"h hav*, if an Ruling an- Ra'io(

 The )unicipality of Dumangas Dumangas is the o#ner$ o#ner$ .C a/rmed the decision of of CFI- Iloilo ordering the inscription in registry of the property property in their name$ !ut in vie# of the time that has elapsed since the church #as "uilt and during #hich period the municipality has not prohi"ited the passage over the land "y the persons #ho attend services customarily held in said church, it is evident that the Church has acuired a right to such use "y prescription - not only "y the church, "ut also "y the pu"lic$ The easement easement of right of #ay shall shall "e understood to "e to such extent as may "e necessary for the transit of persons and four#heeled vehicles$  There are good grounds for presuming presuming that in apportioning lands at the time of  the esta"l esta"lish ishmen mentt of the pue"lo pue"lo of Dumang Dumangas as and and in desig designat nating ing the land land ad(acent to the church as a pu"lic suare, this latter #as impliedly encum"ered #ith the easement of a right of #ay to allo# the pu"lic to enter and leave the church 0I accordance #ith 'rt$ 23 of C$C$

Ronuillo v. Ro"o, %3 Phil. % G.R. No. L10%1$, &*2ruar #, 1$5

&a"'s(

 The plaintis 0%onuillo, et$ al alleged that they have "een in the continuous and uninterrupted use of a road or passage #ay #hich traversed the land of the defendants 0%oco et, al and their predecessors in interest, in going to Igualdad .treet and the maret place of 5aga City, from their residential land and "ac$  They claimed that have "een long recogni6ed and respected the private legal easement of road right of #ay 078 years$  9n )ay 17, 1:;, the defendants and their men constructed a chapel in the middle of the said right of #ay #hich, accordingly has impeded, o"structed and distur"ed the continuous exercise of the rights of the plaintis over said right of  #ay$ 9n &uly 18, 1:4 defendants planted #ooden posts, fenced #ith "ar"ed #ire and closed hermitically the road passage #ay and their right of #ay against the plainti