Case Digest (G.R. No. 183719) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Margarita F. Castro v. Napoleon A. Monsod (G.R. No. 183719, February 2, 2011), petitioner Margarita F. Castro is the registered owner of a 130-sq.m. parcel in Manuela Homes, Las Piñas City, under TCT No. T-36071. Respondent Napoleon A. Monsod owns the adjoining elevated property in Moonwalk Village, some 15 feet above Castro’s lot, separated by a two-meter concrete fence. On February 29, 2000, Monsod annotated an adverse claim over 65 sq.m. of Castro’s land, not to dispute her ownership but to assert a legal easement of lateral and subjacent support and to prevent harmful excavation that might collapse his house’s foundation. He also filed a barangay complaint for malicious mischief. In response, Castro sought damages and obtained a temporary restraining order with preliminary injunction from the RTC of Las Piñas City, praying additionally for cancellation of the adverse-claim annotation. Prior to litigation, Castro discovered soil and rock deposits near her front door, a sli Case Digest (G.R. No. 183719) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and properties
- Petitioner Margarita F. Castro is the registered owner of a 130 sq.m. lot in Manuela Homes, Las Piñas City, covered by TCT No. T-36071.
- Respondent Napoleon A. Monsod owns the adjoining lot in Moonwalk Village, Phase 2, Las Piñas City; the two subdivisions are separated by a 2 m-high concrete fence.
- Annotation and prelitigation actions
- On February 29, 2000, respondent caused the annotation of an adverse claim over 65 sq.m. of petitioner’s lot, asserting a legal easement of lateral and subjacent support due to a 15-ft elevation difference.
- Respondent filed a barangay complaint for malicious mischief; in turn, petitioner filed a damage suit with prayer for TRO/preliminary injunction and sought cancellation of the adverse‐claim annotation before the RTC.
- Site conditions and property history
- Soil and rock deposits near petitioner’s house entrance hindered parking; a leak prompted petitioner to hire workers to dig and locate its source, but these works were halted by police sent by respondent.
- Petitioner bought the lot in 1994 with no existing easement annotation. Respondent’s family had occupied the adjacent property since 1984; in 1985–86 the developer excavated Manuela Homes, creating an embankment and elevation difference.
- Procedural history
- RTC Decision (Oct. 11, 2004): canceled respondent’s adverse claim, awarded petitioner ₱50,000 moral damages, and dismissed other claims.
- CA Decision (May 25, 2007): reversed the RTC, retained the annotation as recognition of the easement, made the injunction permanent, and dismissed petitioner’s damages claim; Reconsideration denied (July 14, 2008).
- Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether an easement of lateral and subjacent support exists between respondent’s and petitioner’s adjacent properties.
- If such easement exists, whether it may be annotated at the back of the servient estate’s title (TCT No. T-36071).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)