A.M. No. P-24-140 - Gonzales vs. Geronimo

Petitioners are spouses Bernabe Mercader, Jr. and Lorna Jurado Mercader, along with Oliver Mercader, Geraldine Mercader, and Esramay Mercader. Respondents are spouses Jesus Bardilas and Letecia Gabuya Bardilas.
The dispute centers on three parcels of land: Lot No. 5808-F-1, Lot No. 5808-F-2-A, and Lot No. 5808-F-2-B, all portions of Lot No. 5808-F situated in Barangay Punta Princesa, Cebu City. Lot No. 5808-F was originally registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 78424 owned by Arsenia Fernandez and her husband Simeon Cortes.

Lot No. 5808-F-1 (289 sq. m.) fronted a side street in Clarita Village and was registered under TCT No. 88156 in the name of the minor children of Bernabe Mercader, Jr. by his first wife.
Lot No. 5808-F-2-A (89 sq. m.) located behind Lot No. 5808-F-1 was covered by TCT No. 107914 under the names of spouses Bernabe Mercader and Lorna Jurado. It was bounded on the north and east by Lot No. 5808-F-2-B, with an existing Right of Way 3 meters wide.
Lot No. 5808-F-2-B (249 sq. m.) behind Lot No. 5808-F-2-A was registered under TCT No. 107915 in the names of spouses Letecia Gabuya Bardilas and Jesus Bardilas. The property was described as subject to a 3-meter wide road right of way.
Further behind was Lot No. 5808-F-3 registered under TCT No. 88158 in the name of spouse Letecia Gabuya Bardilas, having another right of way about 40 meters away from Buhisan Road.

On May 11, 1992, Clarita Village Association erected a concrete fence that blocked the 3-meter wide road right of way exit of the Bardilas spouses to Clarita Village, forcing them to use the alternate exit from Lot No. 5808-F-3.
An inspection by Engr. Edgar T. Batiquin of the Cebu City Building Official found that the fence and part of the Mercaders’ residential house encroached on Bardilas’s right of way by approximately 14 square meters.
A meeting on July 1, 1992 among parties and barangay officials resulted in an agreement to replace the obstructing fence portion with an iron gate to be paid for by the Bardilas spouses, with keys given to both parties. The parties agreed to consider the dispute amicably settled.
On August 14, 1992, Bardilas, through counsel, demanded P30,000 from Mercader for the encroachment or the demolition of the encroaching structures. Mercader replied they were equally entitled to the right of way and proposed to buy the necessary portion at a reasonable price.
Bardilas rejected the claim, asserting ownership of the 3-meter right of way in their title and the existing fence and house encroachments.
Unable to settle, Mercader filed a suit on September 8, 1992, for declaratory relief, injunction, and damages (Civil Case No. CEB-12783). Bardilas filed their own suit on December 24, 1992, for specific performance and injunction (Civil Case No. CEB-13384). The cases were consolidated later.

Mercaders claimed ownership of the easement, insisted on extinguishment due to non-use, invoked the merger doctrine, and sought damages for Bardilas’s unlawful demand.
Bardilas asserted ownership of the right of way as part of their property, claimed Mercader’s encroachment only tolerated as a favor, and alleged Mercader abused this right by using the right of way as a garage. They denied extinguishment and filed counterclaims.

The RTC ruled in favor of Mercader, declaring the extinguishment of the easement, recognizing Mercader as owner of the former easement area, and ordered Bardilas to pay damages and fees. It also declared Bardilas’s suit for specific performance dismissed and upheld the closure of the Clarita Village road right of way as lawful.
Bardilas moved for a new trial presenting a supposed deed of donation of road lots to Cebu City and certifications that the road network was public, but the RTC denied the motion due to procedural and substantive inadequacies in evidence.

The CA partially granted Bardilas’s appeal, declaring the Bardilas spouses as owners of the 3-meter wide road right of way, granting them the right to use and occupy it, and ordering Mercaders to pay attorney’s fees and costs.
The CA dismissed Bardilas’s complaint for specific performance and declared Clarita Village roads as private.
Mercader’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.

Mercaders sought review before the Supreme Court especially contesting the CA’s award of the 3-meter road right of way to Bardilas and the award of attorney’s fees.

Whether petitioners Mercader acquired ownership or any entitlement to the 3-meter wide road right of way by virtue of their title or otherwise.
Whether the right of way easement was extinguished or remains valid and enforceable.
Whether the respondents Bardilas, as owners of the servient estate, retain ownership of the right of way and may enforce ownership rights including demanding removal of encroachment.
Whether the award of attorney’s fees to respondents Bardilas was proper and justified under the law.