Case Summary (G.R. No. 127823)
Background of the Property Sale and Dispute
On January 11, 1993, Victor and Jocelyn Valdez purchased a 200-square-meter eastern portion of a 380-square-meter residential lot from Francisco and Caridad Tabisula, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. This parcel was described specifically in the deed, including its boundaries and tax declaration. The deed emphasized that the sellers sold the 200 sq.m. portion free from liens and encumbrances, warranting absolute ownership to the buyers. Additionally, the deed referred to a 2.5-meter-wide road right-of-way on the western side of the lot “not included in this sale,” which allegedly was to be provided to the buyers.
Issues Surrounding the Right-of-Way
Respondents later erected a concrete wall on the western side of the subject property, which petitioners believed obstructed the intended road right-of-way referenced in the deed. Attempts at barangay mediation failed as respondents did not attend scheduled conferences. In April 1999, petitioners filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages, requesting an order for respondents to provide the right-of-way and remove the wall, claiming reliance on assurances given during the sale.
Respondents’ Defense and Counterclaims
Respondents argued that the 2.5-meter road right-of-way should be taken from the western side of the subject property itself, not from their own lot. They asserted that petitioners and their family already owned two adjoining properties with legitimate access to public roads. Respondents further claimed that owing to a pre-existing concrete house at the location indicated as the right-of-way, they could not have agreed to grant such an easement. They supported this claim with a letter from the City Engineer’s Office dated February 20, 2003.
Trial Court Decision
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petitioners’ complaint and granted respondents’ counterclaim for damages and costs. The trial court held that the deed only conveyed ownership of the 200 sq.m. portion without granting a definite easement. The court awarded respondents moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, expenses of litigation, and costs.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. It held that the deed’s reference to a right-of-way was vague and did not constitute a definitive grant of a voluntary easement. Petitioners were found not entitled to either a legal or compulsory easement because they failed to prove the requisites under Article 649 of the Civil Code for a compulsory easement.
Legal Framework on Easements
An easement or servitude is a real right imposed on an immovable property for the benefit of another (Civil Code, Art. 613). Easements may be either legal (by operation of law) or voluntary (by the will of owners) (Civil Code, Art. 619). A disposition of real property, including easements, requires a public document (Civil Code, Art. 1358), and registration is essential to protect against third parties (Civil Code, Arts. 708 and 709). Voluntary easements must be clearly and expressly created and are subject to formalities.
Interpretation of the Deed Provision on Right-of-Way
The language in the deed stating that petitioners “shall be provided a 2 ½ meters wide road right-of-way on the western side of their lot but which is not included in this sale” was not considered a definitive grant of an easement. The phrase “not included in this sale” implied that a separate agreement was necessary to establish the right-of-way. The use of “shall” was interpreted permissively, not imperatively, since no public or private right mandated its strict enforcement.
Failure to Establish Legal or Compulsory Easement
To justify a legal easement under Article 649, petitioners needed to prove: (1) their property is surrounded by other properties and lacks adequate access to a public highway; (2) payment of proper indemnity; (3) their property’s isolation was not due to their own acts; (4) the right-of-way was at the least prejudicial point to the servient estate; and (5) the location provided the shortest route to a public highway. Petitioners failed to satisfy these conditions because they owned adjoining properties with access to public roads. The evidence showed more than adequate access existed, negating their entitlement to an easement over respondents’ land.
Status of the Referenced Roads and Surrounding Area
At the time of the deed’s execution, the barangay road giving access to Burgos Street did not yet exist, and the purported right-of-way was previously a creek. This contextual reality undermined petitioners’ claim to a legal or compulsory right-of-way over respondents’ property.
Award of Damages to Respondents – Grounds for Reversal
The trial court’s award of moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses to respondents was found baseless. Moral damages require evidence of actual moral suffering or mental anguish caused willfully and in bad faith by the opposing party. Respondents’ counterclaim offered only general allegations without proof of bad faith or ill motive.
Further, by virtue of Article 199 of Rule XXVI of the Local Government Code’s Implementing Rules, respondents were precluded from filing any counterclaim as they willfully failed to appear before the barangay lupon during mediation. The certificate of non-appearance confirmed this failure, barring their counterclaim to any relief arising from
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 127823)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner-spouses Victor and Jocelyn Valdez purchased a 200 square meter portion (eastern portion) of a 380 square meter residential lot located in San Fernando, La Union, covered by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 11, 1993.
- The entire 380 sq.m. parcel was described with boundaries and area; it was not registered under Act 496 nor the Spanish Mortgage Law.
- The deed conveyed ownership of the 200 sq. m. portion to petitioners with warranty of ownership and included a provision that petitioners "shall be provided a 2½ meters wide road right-of-way on the western side of their lot but which is not included in this sale."
- Respondents built a concrete wall on the western side of the purchased property, which petitioners believed blocked the intended road right-of-way.
- Petitioners sought barangay mediation which respondents failed to attend, leading petitioners to file a Complaint for Specific Performance to enforce the right-of-way and to have the concrete wall removed.
- Respondents counterclaimed damages and attorney’s fees, arguing the easement should be taken from the western portion of the subject property and noted petitioners' adjoining properties have public road access.
- A two-storey concrete house already stood on the portion respondents alleged would be the site of the easement.
- RTC dismissed petitioners’ complaint, granted respondents’ counterclaim, awarding moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, expenses of litigation, and costs.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling the deed only conveyed ownership and the right of way was not a definite grant of an easement; petitioners were neither entitled to a legal nor compulsory easement under Article 649 of the Civil Code.
- Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari, contesting:
- The trial court’s ruling that the right of way is not part of the absolute deed of sale;
- That the provision of the deed granting a right of way is vague and obscure;
- The award of moral and exemplary damages to respondents.
Issue Presented
- Whether the provision in the Deed of Absolute Sale conveying ownership together with a promise of a road right-of-way not included in the sale constitutes a definite grant of an easement or servitude.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to a legal or compulsory easement of right of way under the Civil Code.
- Whether respondents are entitled to moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and expenses of litigation.
Legal Principles and Rules Applied
- An easement or servitude is a real right constituted on another’s immovable property for another’s benefit (Art. 613, Civil Code).
- Easements m