Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-05-1576)
Facts:
In G.R. No. L-10619 decided on February 28, 1958, Leogario Ronquillo et al. (appellants) filed an amended and supplemental complaint in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur alleging they had used a narrow strip of land belonging to Vicente Roco y Domínguez and his successors as a road to Igualdad Street and Naga City market for over twenty years. They contended that on May 12, 1953, Jose Roco, as administrator of Vicente Roco’s estate, together with co-defendants, began building a chapel on that path, partially obstructing the way. Then on July 10, 1954, new defendants erected wooden posts and barbed wire to completely close the passage, thereby preventing the appellants’ access to their homes. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, holding that a right of way is a discontinuous easement not susceptible to acquisition by prescription.Issues:
Can...Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-05-1576)
Facts:
- Parties and Complaint
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Leogario Ronquillo and co-plaintiffs, owners of residential lands in Naga City.
- Defendants-Appellees: José Roco, as administrator of the estate of Vicente Roco y Domínguez, Natividad Roco, Gregorio Miras, Jr., Raymundo Martínez, and their predecessors in interest.
- Allegations of the Amended and Supplemental Complaint
- Prescriptive Use
- Continuous and uninterrupted use for more than twenty (20) years of a passageway crossing defendants’ land as a private legal easement of right of way, leading to Igualdad Street and the public market of Naga City.
- Recognition and respect of this easement by the defendants and their predecessors.
- Acts of Obstruction
- May 12, 1953: Defendants, with malice aforethought, began constructing a chapel on the right of way, impeding and disturbing plaintiffs’ use.
- July 10, 1954: New defendants, with approval of José Roco, forcefully planted posts, erected barbed‐wire fences, and hermetically closed the passage, preventing plaintiffs’ access.
- Procedural History
- Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (March 6, 1955): Dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, holding that an easement of right of way is discontinuous and cannot be acquired by prescription.
- Appeal to the Supreme Court: Brought directly due to the purely legal nature of the question.
Issues:
- Whether an easement of right of way—being apparent but discontinuous—can be acquired through prescription under the Old or New Civil Code and applicable procedural laws.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)