Case Digest (G.R. No. 95252)
Facts:
La Vista Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Solid Homes, Inc., Ateneo de Manila University, et al., G.R. No. 95252, June 22, 1998, First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. The dispute concerns Mangyan Road, a 15-meter boundary road in Quezon City between the La Vista subdivision and the Ateneo/Maryknoll (Miriam) College properties, and whether an easement of right-of-way exists over it. The property’s chain of title shows that on July 1, 1949 the Tuason family sold a tract to the Philippine Building Corporation by a Deed of Sale with Mortgage that provided in paragraph 3 that the boundary line between the sold property and the vendors’ adjoining land “shall be a road fifteen (15) meters wide, one-half of which shall be taken from the property herein sold to the vendee and the other half from the portion adjoining belonging to the vendors.” On December 7, 1951 the Philippine Building Corporation assigned the parcel to Ateneo de Manila University (ATENEO), which expressly assumed the mortgage and the obligations of the 1949 deed.Subsequently the Tuasons developed their portion into La Vista Subdivision and ATENEO sold part of its property (including the hillside parcels abutting Mangyan Road) to Solid Homes, Inc., which developed Loyola Grand Villas. Over the years the parties disputed the road’s width and use: Maryknoll erected a wall in the center of the 15-meter strip (later removed after a complaint by the Tuasons), ATENEO at times erected an adobe wall and deferred improving its 7.5-meter share, and La Vista developed its 7.5-meter portion. Letters from La Vista officers in 1976 acknowledged the 15-meter road and the mutual right-of-way; ATENEO’s subsequent sale to Solid Homes included a clause transferring the vendor’s “privileges of such right of way” to the vendee.
Tensions culminated when Solid Homes, Inc. filed Civil Case No. Q‑22450 in the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal on December 17, 1976, seeking to enjoin La Vista from obstructing Loyola residents’ use of Mangyan Road. The trial court (RTC‑Br. 89, Quezon City; decision penned by Judge Rodolfo A. Ortiz) issued a preliminary injunction (initially in 1977 and again recognized in orders) and, after trial, rendered judgment on November 20, 1987 declaring an easement of right‑of‑way in favor of Solid Homes and permanently enjoining La Vista from closing Mangyan Road; it also awarded attorneys’ fees and damages.
The Intermediate Appellate Court (AC‑G.R. SP No. 02534) had earlier nullified and set aside the trial court’s 14 September 1983 injunction order by its May 31, 1985 decision. Solid Homes filed a petition for review (G.R. No. 71150) contesting that nullification; the Supreme Court on April 20, 1988 dismissed G.R. No. 71150 as moot in view of the trial court’s later final judgment on the merits. Meanwhile, appeals and incidents culminated in various proceedings before the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CV No. 19929: on September 21, 1989 the Court of Appeals ordered La Vista to allow Loyola residents unobstructed passage, granted intervention by Loyola residents, and denied both parties’ contempt motions; those rulings were affirmed and became executory. Solid Homes and La Vista each sought reconsideration; the Court of Appeals on May 22, 1990 affirmed in toto the RTC’s November 20, 1987 decision (decision penned by Justice Jose A.R. Melo), and its September 6, 1990 resolution denying motions for reconsideration followed.
La Vista filed a petition to this Court assailing the Court of Appeals’ May 22, 1990 Decision (docketed here as G.R. No. 95252). Two related S...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did prior rulings on preliminary injunctions operate as res judicata and bar the Court of Appeals from declaring the existence of an easement over Mangyan Road?
- Was the Court of Appeals’ allowance of intervention by Loyola residents proper despite intervention being sought after trial and appeal?
- Did an easement of right‑of‑way exist over Mangyan Road in favor of Solid Homes/Loyola such that La Vista could be permanen...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)