Title
Spouses Rosemary D. Gabatan and Alexander N. Gabatan vs. Dominga B. Ahlgren
Case
G.R. No. 248685
Decision Date
Jul 7, 2025
ROW dispute. Remand: CA to determine if easement benefits land (real) or persons (personal) at origin.
easement
right of way
civil law

Case Summary (G.R. No. 248685)

Factual Background

The land subject of the controversy traces to the registration of Lot No. 2561 under OCT No. O-V-3583, originally registered in the name of Spouses Mamerto Divinagracia and Susana Orozca. As early as October 5, 1948, a ROW was voluntarily created on Lot No. 2561 in favor of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. This ROW was annotated on the title, with an entry stating that the parcel was subject to the “Road Right of Way” per a deed on file.

Subsequently, the annotation under Entry No. 19634 was cancelled by a court order dated January 30, 1979, and the OCT carried the further annotation reflecting such cancellation. In August 1986, the heirs of Conrado executed an Extrajudicial Settlement dividing Lot No. 2561 into twelve sublots. One sublot, Lot No. 2561-L, was adjudicated to Eufresen O. Divinagracia, and Lot No. 2561-L was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-24142.

Under Entry No. 100340 on TCT No. T-24142, a different ROW was annotated. The annotation dated April 3, 1987 stated that Eufresen O. Divinagracia granted to Teofila Divinagracia, Alfredo Divinagracia, Felix Divinagracia, and Ester Divinagracia a permanent easement of right of way over the parcel covered by the title, described as limited to a path or passageway sufficient for any motor vehicle to pass, per a deed identified as Doc. No. 391, Page No. 80, Book No. III, Series of 1987 of Notary Public Nereo V. Catan. The record also indicated that this ROW pertained to the same road previously described under Entry No. 19634 on the OCT, though that earlier ROW had already been cancelled.

Petitioners acquired and owned Lot No. 2554-Da, adjoining Lot No. 2561-L and bounded on the north by Lot No. 2561. In 2001, petitioners built a residential house on their lot and erected a fence with the main gate facing the ROW they asserted was established and annotated on the original title now reflected under the TCT of Lot No. 2561-L.

Ahlgren later purchased a portion of Lot No. 2561-L from Eufresen. In 2006, Ahlgren erected a garage and fence at the location petitioners claimed to be the ROW covered by Entry No. 100340. Petitioners alleged that the construction deprived them of access to and from the National Highway.

Initiation of the Civil Action and RTC Judgment

On March 15, 2007, petitioners filed a Complaint for Injunction and Damages with Prayer for Writs of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Restraining Order against Ahlgren, seeking to compel the removal of the structure allegedly built on the road right of way. Ahlgren denied the existence of any ROW in petitioners’ favor. She argued that the ROW in favor of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church had long been cancelled, and that the ROW arising from Eufresen’s grant, as annotated on TCT T-24142, applied only to Eufresen’s siblings and co-heirs and was limited in scope.

After due proceedings, the RTC issued a Decision dated May 28, 2014 granting petitioners’ prayer. It ordered Ahlgren to demolish her garage and fence constructed on the road right of way portion of Lot No. 2561-L, to cease and desist from obstructing the free passage of the same road right of way, and to pay attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

The RTC reasoned that a portion of Lot No. 2561 had been used as a road since it was sold by the parents of Eufresen to the Board of Foreign Missions. The RTC found that, prior to and after the subdivision, the portion had served as a right of way in favor of petitioners, their predecessors-in-interest, and the public in general. It held that Ahlgren was bound by the easement even if no registration of the servitude had been made on the TCT.

In support, the RTC relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Limense et al. v. De Ramos et al. (G.R. No. 152319, October 28, 2009), emphasizing that a party who is fully aware of a continuously used alley or easement must respect it, even if the dominant lot was not annotated at the back of the title.

CA Appellate Ruling

On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC Decision. In its Decision dated September 27, 2018, the CA held that petitioners failed to prove two key matters: first, the existence of a voluntary easement of ROW in their favor; and second, their entitlement to a legal easement of ROW.

The CA focused on the specific terms of Entry No. 100340 on TCT No. T-24142, which listed as beneficiaries Teofila Divinagracia, Alfredo Divinagracia, Felix Divinagracia, and Ester Divinagracia. Because petitioners were not among the named individuals, and because petitioners did not allege that they were the heirs, assigns, or successors-in-interest of those named persons, the CA concluded that the voluntary easement under Entry No. 100340 was only effective “between the parties, their heirs, and assigns.” Having found that petitioners were neither the named beneficiaries nor the latter’s heirs or assigns, the CA declared that petitioners had no right to avail themselves of the easement.

With the voluntary easement rejected, the CA further held that the elements required for a legal easement of ROW were not established. The CA accordingly dismissed petitioners’ Complaint. Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated June 28, 2019, prompting the Rule 45 Petition before the Supreme Court.

Core Issue Raised

The main issue was whether petitioners were entitled to a ROW over Ahlgren’s land, considering the competing assertions regarding the scope and beneficiaries of the ROW annotated on the relevant titles and the distinction between voluntary and legal easements.

Parties’ Positions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioners maintained that a ROW existed in their favor and that the road had been utilized and used as such for a long time. They argued, consistent with their Complaint, that the road on Ahlgren’s property had been in existence and used for over fifty years by the public.

Ahlgren maintained that petitioners had no ROW right. She insisted that the earlier ROW in favor of the Board of Foreign Missions was cancelled, and that the only subsisting ROW on the subdivided title had been granted solely to the four specifically identified persons and their successors in interest. She argued that petitioners could not claim the easement because they were not the named beneficiaries and had not shown the necessary relationship as heirs, assigns, or successors.

Legal Basis Applied by the Court

In assessing the dispute, the Supreme Court observed the governing principles on the nature and proof of easements. A ROW that is apparent and discontinuous could be acquired only by title, underscoring the need to establish a right grounded on a valid instrument reflected in the titles. The Court also reiterated that a duly registered certificate of title is a public document and entries therein are presumed correct unless rebutted by competent evidence.

The Court acknowledged that, according to the record and annotations, a ROW had indeed been voluntarily granted and annotated under Entry No. 100340 on TCT No. T-24142. The annotation expressly stated that Eufresen permitted the four named Divinagracia individuals—Teofila, Alfredo, Felix, and Ester—to have a permanent easement of right of way, limited to a path or passageway enough for motor vehicles to pass.

However, the Supreme Court faulted the CA’s approach for treating the easement as if it were solely personal or contractual in nature, effective only between the named individuals and their heirs and assigns, without engaging the doctrinal classification of the servitude under the Civil Code.

The Court invoked Art. 613, which defines an easement or servitude as an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner. It also cited Art. 614, which allows servitudes to be established for the benefit of a community or one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong. The Court explained that the classification between a real servitude and a personal servitude depends on whether the beneficiaries held a dominant tenement, since a real servitude follows the servient estate and is not limited to specific persons, while a personal servitude is limited to the persons indicated.

The Supreme Court further emphasized that the CA had not inquired into whether the named beneficiaries in Entry No. 100340 were, when the easement was created, owners of a dominant tenement linked to Lot No. 2561. It underscored that, while the RTC established that Lot No. 2561 had been subdivided by the heirs of Conrado, the record did not show evidence on the location or ownership of the heirs’ lots in relation to Lot No. 2561-L, the title in which the easement was annotated.

Court’s Reasoning and Disposition

The Supreme Court held that the CA erred in automatically concluding that the easement under Entry No. 100340 was purely personal and therefore only enforceable by the named individuals and their heirs or assigns. The Court reasoned that such conclusion required factual inquiry into whether Teofila Divinagracia, Alfredo Divinagracia, Felix Divinagracia, and Ester Divinagracia were owners of a dominant

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms