Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 505 views

    De La Cruz Vs Ramiscal

    Uploaded by

    Ram Derick
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 1.10m by 12.60m strip of land between respondent Ramiscal and petitioner spouses de la Cruz. Ramiscal owns the land and discovered in 1995 that the de la Cruz's had enclosed part of it for use as their pathway. The court ruled that the de la Cruz's were not entitled to a voluntary or legal easement over the land. It also found that the defense of laches did not apply as Ramiscal demanded the enclosure be removed and reasonably filed a complaint upon discovering the encroachment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    De La Cruz Vs Ramiscal

    Uploaded by

    Ram Derick
    505 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 1.10m by 12.60m strip of land between respondent Ramiscal and petitioner spouses de la Cruz. Ramiscal owns the land and discovered in 1995 that the de la Cruz's had enclosed part of it for use as their pathway. The court ruled that the de la Cruz's were not entitled to a voluntary or legal easement over the land. It also found that the defense of laches did not apply as Ramiscal demanded the enclosure be removed and reasonably filed a complaint upon discovering the encroachment.

    Original Description:

    case of de la cruz vs ramiscal

    Original Title

    de La Cruz vs Ramiscal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 1.10m by 12.60m strip of land between respondent Ramiscal and petitioner spouses de la Cruz. Ramiscal owns the land and discovered in 1995 that the de la Cruz's had enclosed part of it for use as their pathway. The court ruled that the de la Cruz's were not entitled to a voluntary or legal easement over the land. It also found that the defense of laches did not apply as Ramiscal demanded the enclosure be removed and reasonably filed a complaint upon discovering the encroachment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    505 views1 page

    De La Cruz Vs Ramiscal

    Uploaded by

    Ram Derick
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 1.10m by 12.60m strip of land between respondent Ramiscal and petitioner spouses de la Cruz. Ramiscal owns the land and discovered in 1995 that the de la Cruz's had enclosed part of it for use as their pathway. The court ruled that the de la Cruz's were not entitled to a voluntary or legal easement over the land. It also found that the defense of laches did not apply as Ramiscal demanded the enclosure be removed and reasonably filed a complaint upon discovering the encroachment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Jay Ronwaldo T.

    Julia

    Property
    Case No. 12

    De La Cruz vs. Ramiscal


    G.R. No. 137882, February 4, 2005
    Facts:
    Respondent Ramiscal is the registered owner of a parcel of land located at the corner of
    18th Avenue and Boni Serano Avenue, Murphy, Quezon City. Petitioner-spouses are occupants
    of a parcel of land located at the back of Ramiscals property owned by Concepcion de la Pena,
    mother of petitioner Alfredo de la Cruz. The subject matter of this case is a 1.10m wide by
    12.60m long strip of land owned by respondent which is being used by petitioners as their
    pathway to and from 18th Avenue, the nearest public highway from their property. Petitioner had
    enclosed the same with a gate, fence and roof. In 1995, a relocation survey and location plan
    for the respondents properties were prepared and it was only then that respondent discovered
    that the pathway being occupied by petitioners is part of her property. Respondent immediately
    demanded that the petitioners demolish the structure constructed by them on said pathway
    without her consent but such demand was unheeded.
    Issues:
    (1) Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to a voluntary or legal easement of right of
    way.
    (2) Whether or not respondent is barred by laches from closing the right of way being
    used by petitioners.
    Held:
    (1) Petitioners are entitled neither to a voluntary nor legal easement of right of way.
    Petitioners failed to show by competent evidence other than their bare claim that
    they and their tenants entered into an argument with the respondent. Likewise futile
    are petitioners attempt to show that they are legally entitled to the pathway under Art.
    649 of the Civil Code. The conferment of a legal easement of right of way under this
    article is subject to proof of the following: 1) It is surrounded by other immovables
    and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; 2) payment of proper indemnity; 3)
    the isolation is not the result of its own acts; 4) the right of way claim is at the point
    that least prejudicial to the servient estate; and 5) to the extent consistent with the
    foregoing rule where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway be
    the shortest. The first three requirements are not present in the instant case.
    (2) Respondent is not barred by laches from closing the right of way being used by
    petitioners. Laches is not applicable here since there was no knowledge on the part
    of the respondents act for it was only in 1995 that she found out that the pathway
    being used by the petitioners was part of her property. Further, delay in the filing of
    suit is not a valid contention in this case for respondent immediately demanded
    petitioners to demolish their property and reasonably filed in complaint.

    You might also like