Title
Spouses Ferdez vs. Spouses Delfin
Case
G.R. No. 227917
Decision Date
Mar 17, 2021
Fernandez Spouses established a valid easement on front properties for back properties' access; Delfin Spouses, as successors, bound by annotations.
properties
valid easement
front properties

Case Summary (G.R. No. 227917)

Factual Background

The petitioners formerly owned five contiguous parcels in Bonuan Gueset, Dagupan City, two of which fronted the national highway and served as the only access for the three rear parcels. On October 6, 1980 the petitioners caused annotations on the transfer certificates of title of the two front lots declaring an easement of right of way one meter wide in favor of the rear lots. The petitioners later mortgaged the front lots to the Philippine National Bank, which foreclosed and acquired them. Thereafter respondents purchased the foreclosed front lots from the bank and received Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 92271 and 92272, which bore the same annotations.

Events Leading to Litigation

After respondents took possession, they enclosed the front lots and refused petitioners’ use of the annotated right of way. Petitioners then filed a Complaint for specific performance, right of way, and damages in the Regional Trial Court, asserting a right to access the national highway by virtue of the annotated easement. Respondents countered that no valid easement existed because the annotations were self-serving acts made when a single owner held all lots, that any purported easement was extinguished upon foreclosure and bank acquisition, and that petitioners had alternative access; respondents also offered a conditional one-meter right of way in return for indemnity.

Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling

Following an ocular inspection and the parties’ negotiations, respondents undertook to allocate one meter on the northeastern portion of the front lots for passage, conditioned on indemnity, and petitioners agreed to refrain from using the lots pending final agreement. The Regional Trial Court held the issue of the annotated easement moot because respondents had voluntarily constituted a different right of way; the RTC therefore refused to grant indemnity and instead constituted a road right of way on the west side of Lots 2–6 in favor of petitioners’ rear lots (TCT Nos. 41452 and 41453), issuing its July 28, 2014 Decision accordingly.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Respondents appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC in its January 25, 2016 Decision, concluding that no easement of right of way had been constituted because the alleged servitude was imposed while a single person owned the five parcels, contrary to Civil Code, art. 613 which requires different owners; the CA treated the annotations as mere notice to third parties and invoked Civil Code, art. 649 as the proper rubric, finding that the requisites for constituting a voluntary easement under art. 649 were lacking and that the parties’ dealings showed that any offer of easement was conditional on indemnity which petitioners rejected; the CA accordingly dismissed the complaint.

Petition for Review and Parties’ Contentions

In their petition to the Supreme Court petitioners asserted that Civil Code, art. 624 applied because the petitioners, as original sole owners, had established apparent signs of an easement by using the front lots for passage and by annotating the titles, and that neither the bank nor respondents had removed the signs or stipulated contrary in the deeds; petitioners invoked Civil Code, art. 688 to show an owner may establish suitable easements. Respondents reiterated that no voluntary easement was constituted because any offer was conditioned on indemnity, maintained that annotations made while a single owner held all lots could not create an easement, and argued that petitioners failed to prove requisites for a legal easement.

Issue Presented

The sole issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether a valid easement of right of way had been constituted on the front properties formerly owned by petitioners and subsequently owned by respondents, specifically those covered by TCT Nos. 92271 and 92272.

Supreme Court Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and granted the petition. The Court held that an easement of right of way in favor of petitioners was validly constituted on the front properties now owned by respondents, and it set aside the Court of Appeals’ January 25, 2016 Decision and September 26, 2016 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 103601.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court began with the statutory definition that an easement is an encumbrance upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner (Civil Code, art. 613), and noted that a right of way is a discontinuous easement that must be acquired by title (Civil Code, art. 622). The Court explained that title to such an easement may be acquired voluntarily or legally under art. 629 (with its attendant requisites). Crucially, the Court applied Civil Code, art. 624, which provides that where an apparent sign of easement between two estates was established or maintained by one owner, that apparent sign shall be considered a title to continue the easement when either estate is alienated, unless the contrary is provided in the deed of conveyance or the sign is removed before transfer. The Court found that petitioners had established an apparent sign by actively using a portion of the front lots for access and by annotating the front titles, that the Philippine National Bank acquired the front lots without stipulating against the easement or removing the signs, and that respondents purchased the lots with the annotations on the titles and without manifest objection; under art. 624 the apparent sign therefore operated as title to the easement.

Precedents and

...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