Facts:

In the case of Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. vs. Capitol Subdivision, Inc. (G.R. No. L-25887, July 26, 1966), the Bacolod-Murcia Milling Company (hereinafter referred to as the Central) sought a writ of certiorari to annul a resolution issued by the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals. This resolution had enjoined the enforcement of a preliminary injunction granted by Judge Jose F. Fernandez in Civil Case No. 7698 of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, which permitted the Central to utilize a right of way over properties owned by Capitol Subdivision, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Subdivision). The conflict began on October 10, 1965, when the Central filed a complaint against the Subdivision to obtain a legal easement of right of way. The complaint highlighted that a milling contract dated August 30, 1920, allowed the original owners of "Hacienda Mandalagan" to grant the Central a right of way for 45 years for the operation of railways and ot

...

Facts:

Parties Involved

• Petitioners:
• Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc.
• Judge Jose F. Fernandez
• Respondents:
• Capitol Subdivision, Inc.
• The Court of Appeals

Origin of the Case

• The dispute originated on 10 October 1965 when Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. (the Central) filed suit against Capitol Subdivision, Inc. (the Subdivision).
• The relief sought was the recognition of a legal easement of right of way over the Subdivision’s property, known as “Hacienda Mandalagan” (specifically Lots 410-B and 1205), designed to facilitate the transportation of sugar and other materials.

Contractual Background and Easement Request

• A milling contract dated 30 August 1920 (later extended to a 45‑year term) granted the Central an easement for constructing and using a railway line, as well as canals, water pipes, and telephone lines.
• The contract stipulated that even if certain parts of the “Hacienda” were later subdivided, the established easement would remain respected.
• The milling contract expired on 30 September 1965, thereby calling into question the continued right to use the railway.

Judicial Proceedings Prior to Supreme Court Intervention

• On 13 October 1965, the Court of First Instance issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining Capitol Subdivision, Inc. from interfering with the Central’s railway operations.
• Dissatisfied with the preliminary relief, the Subdivision raised objections and moved to dismiss, prompting the matter to escalate judicially.
• On 18 March 1966, the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals issued a resolution regarding the matter, which eventually led the Central to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari alleging that the resolution improperly decided the case in advance of trial.

Reason for the Petition for Certiorari

• The petitioners contended that the resolution by the Court of Appeals effectively decided the disputed issues, usurping the role of the trial court.
• It was argued that the writ of preliminary injunction was based on the erroneous assumption that the Central retained a valid easement after the expiration of its contractual right.
• The Central feared that without proper evidentiary findings regarding the statutory requisites for a compulsory easement, its right of way and continued operation of the railway would suffer irreparable harm.

Issue:

Entitlement to a Legal Easement

• Whether Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. is entitled to a legal easement of right of way over Capitol Subdivision, Inc.’s property despite the expiration of its contractual easement.
• Whether prolonged use under the milling contract, spanning 45 years, can transform into a compulsory servitude recognized under the Civil Code.

Validity of the Preliminary Injunction

• Whether the issuance of the preliminary injunction by the Court of First Instance was proper once the contractual easement had expired.
• Whether the petitioner satisfied the preconditions required by the Civil Code for obtaining a compulsory right of way.

Appropriateness of the Court of Appeals’ Intervention

• Whether the Court of Appeals, by issuing a resolution that questioned the existence of a legal easement, overstepped its proper judicial function by preemptively deciding evidentiary issues.
• Whether doing so interfered with the trial court’s role in determining the merits of the case.

Sufficiency of Proof for Statutory Requisites

• Whether the Central adequately demonstrated the four mandatory requisites under Civil Code Articles 649 and 650: isolation of the dominant estate, payment of proper indemnity, absence of contributory fault in creating the isolation, and the location of the easement at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.
• Whether the lack of these proofs renders the issuance of the preliminary injunction arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)