Property 452 Reviewer- Digests p13

November 1, 2017 | Author: cezar delailani | Category: Easement, Deed, Water Right, Conveyancing, Complaint
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

Property 452 Reviewer-...



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


“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 length…and 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 wall…shall 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. Plaintiff’s wife has certain windows on her property which open on the adjacent lot. It has been established that the plaintiffs hasn’t 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 respondent’s 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


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 Respondent’s 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 Respondent’s 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


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 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. 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 don’t 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)


View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.