Title
Salimbangon vs. Tan
Case
G.R. No. 185240
Decision Date
Jan 21, 2010
Heirs partitioned land, established easements; after ownership changes, court ruled easement on Lot B extinguished when dominant and servient estates consolidated under one owner.
contradictory testimony
true intent
extinguishment

Case Summary (G.R. No. 185240)

Factual Background

Guillermo Ceniza died intestate on July 11, 1951, leaving a parcel of land in Poblacion, Mandaue City that his children later partitioned. On July 17, 1973 the heirs executed an extrajudicial declaration of heirs and partition that allotted Lots A through E among them and established easements of right of way consisting originally of one-and-one-half-meter strips contributed by adjacent lots which together formed a three-meter alley to the street. The partition was annotated on the individual titles. The heirs subsequently modified the partition by cancelling the strips on Lots A, D, and E and by imposing a three-meter alley exclusively along the southwest boundary of Lot B to give interior Lots D and E access to the street. Thereafter, Victoria Ceniza (now Victoria Salimbangon) acquired Lot A and, with her husband, built a house and two garages on it, one of which used the alley across Lot B to reach the street; they cemented and gated that alley. Respondents SPS. SANTOS AND ERLINDA TAN later purchased Lots B, C, D, and E and built improvements that encroached into the easement area and closed the gate, prompting the Salimbangons to complain to the City Engineer and the Tans to file an action for extinguishment of the easement and damages.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Tans filed suit in the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue, docketed as Civil Case MAN-3223, seeking extinguishment of the easement on Lot B and damages, with an application for preliminary injunction. The Salimbangons answered and filed counterclaims. After hearing, the RTC on February 9, 2001 upheld the Salimbangons' easement of right of way over the alley on Lot B and denied damages to the Salimbangons. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Further Procedure

The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 73468 reversed the RTC on July 27, 2007. The CA admitted testimony by one of the previous owners, Eduardo Ceniza, that the true intent of the heirs was to establish the easement solely for the benefit of interior Lots D and E. The CA concluded that, because ownership of Lots B, D, and E was later consolidated in the Tans, the easement ceased to have a dominant estate distinct from a servient estate and thus became extinct by operation of law. The CA denied damages. The CA denied the Salimbangons' motion for reconsideration in its October 14, 2008 resolution. The Salimbangons then filed the present petition to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

The petition raised two principal questions. First, whether the Court of Appeals erred in admitting Eduardo Ceniza's testimony as parol evidence to contradict or modify the written extrajudicial partition. Second, whether the CA erred in ruling that the easement of right of way established by the partition for the benefit of Lot A had been extinguished upon consolidation of ownership.

The Parties' Contentions

The Salimbangons argued that the parol evidence rule precluded admission of testimony that altered the written partition which on its face made Lot A a beneficiary of the easement, and that, because the easement was established by agreement, it could be extinguished only by mutual agreement of the parties. The Tans countered that their complaint expressly put in issue the true intent of the heirs, alleging that the servitude was constituted for the benefit of Lots D and E only; consequently the Tans maintained that extrinsic evidence was admissible under the exceptions to the parol evidence rule and that consolidation of ownership of the dominant and servient estates rendered the easement extinct.

Ruling of the Court

The Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in all respects. The Supreme Court held that the CA properly admitted evidence of the parties' true intent and correctly ruled that the easement on Lot B had been extinguished by operation of law upon consolidation of ownership.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court explained that the parol evidence rule, as codified in Section 9, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, provides that a written agreement is presumed to contain all the terms agreed upon but permits evidence to modify, explain, or add to the written agreement when a party puts in issue the true intent and agreement of the parties. The Tans had pleaded that the easement was intended for the benefit of Lots D and E only, thereby placing the true intent in issue and making extrinsic evidence admissible. The Court also noted that the Salimbangons did not object at trial to admission of Eduardo Ceniza's testimony and thus had effectively waived their right to raise the objection on appeal. On the merits, the Court accepted Eduardo's explanation that

...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