Case Digest (G.R. No. 248685)
Facts:
The case is Spouses Rosemary D. Gabatan and Alexander N. Gabatan v. Dominga B. Ahlgren, G.R. No. 248685, July 07, 2025, Supreme Court Third Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Spouses Rosemary D. Gabatan and Alexander N. Gabatan; respondent is Dominga B. Ahlgren.The dispute concerns whether petitioners are entitled to a right-of-way (ROW) easement over a portion of land originally Lot No. 2561 (OCT No. O-V-3583) that was later subdivided into sublots including Lot No. 2561-L (TCT No. T-24142). In 1948 a deed of sale created and annotated a ROW in favor of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church (Entry No. 19634) on OCT No. O-V-3583; that encumbrance was cancelled by court order (Entry No. 100107) recorded in 1987. After an extrajudicial settlement in 1986, Eufresen O. Divinagracia became owner of Lot No. 2561-L (TCT No. T-24142), and an annotation (Entry No. 100340, dated April 3, 1987) recorded a voluntary easement of ROW by Eufresen in favor of Teofila, Alfredo, Felix and Ester Divinagracia, limited to a passageway sufficient for a motor vehicle.
Petitioners own Lot No. 2554-D, adjacent to Lot No. 2561-L, and constructed a residence with its main gate facing the annotated ROW. After respondent Ahlgren purchased a portion of Lot No. 2561-L from Eufresen and in 2006 erected a garage and fence on the location petitioners claim as the ROW, petitioners filed a Complaint on March 15, 2007 seeking demolition of respondent’s structure, injunctions and damages.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Negros Oriental, Dumaguete City, in Civil Case No. 2007-14081, rendered a Decision dated May 28, 2014 in favor of petitioners ordering demolition of Ahlgren’s garage and fence, cessation of obstruction, attorney’s fees (P20,000), and costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 05248 issued a Decision dated September 27, 2018 (penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurred by Justices Contreras and Acosta) reversing and setting aside the RTC decision, ruling that the voluntary easement annotated on TCT No. T-24142 benefited only the four named individuals (and their heirs/assigns) and that petitioners were not entitled to a legal easement of ROW. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated June 28, 2019 (penned by Justice Montejo-Gonzaga).
Petitioners f...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Were petitioners entitled to a right-of-way easement over respondent Ahlgren’s parcel (i.e., does the annotation in Entry No. 100340 create a real servitude that benefits petitione...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)