Dumangas v. Bishop of Jaro, 34 Phil.

541
G.R. No. L1077, !ar"h #$, 1$1%

&a"'s(

 The municipality of Dumangas, Province

Province of Iloilo, petitioned the CFI of Ilo-Ilo the
registration of six parcels of land totalling 41 sm land is located in the !arrio of 
!ala"ag, Dumangas, Iloilo
Iloilo of #hich said municipality
municipality claimed to "e the
the a"solute
o#ner and in possession
possession since time immemorial$
immemorial$

 The application for registration

registration #as opposed "y the %o %oman
man Catholic !ishop of 
 &aro$
 &aro$ They contend that the said lots
l ots a"solutely and exclusively
exclusively "elonged to the
%om
omanan Ca
Catho
tholic
lic 'posto
'postolic
lic Chur
Church,
ch, #hich
#hich had "een
"een in uiet
uiet and
and peacea
peacea"le
"le
possession of same since time immemorial$

It to have "een duly proven that the disputed lot 1 of parcel 4, is ad(acent to the
same #all that forms the side of the church in #hich there is a side door that
serves as passage
passage for the faithful
faithful and that in order to do so
so they are compelled
compelled
to cross the su"(ect land$

!ut, I is also conclusively proven that the )un$ of Dumangas has "een in the
poss
posses
essi
sion
on of the
the lot
lot and
and have
have perf
perfor
orme
medd ther
thereo
eon
n acts
acts of undi
undisp
sput
uta"
a"le
le
o#nership * erecting +ag sta, use of land as corral, a place for posting posters,
"uilding a theater, a school and even a cocpit and a "illiard hall$ 't present
private several houses are erected "y private parties #ho pays rental to the
)unicipality$

)ssu*( +ho ons 'h* lan- +ha' righ' -o*s 'h* /hur"h hav*, if an

Ruling an- Ra'io(

 The )unicipality of Dumangas

Dumangas is the o#ner$
o#ner$ .C a/rmed the decision of
of CFI- Iloilo
ordering the inscription in registry of the property
property in their name$

!ut in vie# of the time that has elapsed since the church #as "uilt and during
#hich period the municipality has not prohi"ited the passage over the land "y
the persons #ho attend services customarily held in said church, it is evident
that the Church has acuired a right to such use "y prescription - not only "y the
church, "ut also "y the pu"lic$ The easement
easement of right of #ay shall
shall "e understood
to "e to such extent as may "e necessary for the transit of persons and four-
#heeled
vehicles$

 There are good grounds for presuming

presuming that in apportioning lands at the time of 
the esta"l
esta"lish
ishmen
mentt of the pue"lo
pue"lo of Dumang
Dumangasas and
and in desig
designat
nating
ing the land
land
ad(acent to the church as a pu"lic suare, this latter #as impliedly encum"ered
#ith the easement of a right of #ay to allo# the pu"lic to enter and leave the
church 0I accordance #ith 'rt$ 23 of C$C$
Ronuillo v. Ro"o, %3 Phil. %
G.R. No. L10%1$, &*2ruar #, 1$5

&a"'s(

 The plaintis 0%onuillo, et$ al alleged that they have "een in the continuous
and uninterrupted use of a road or passage #ay #hich traversed the land of the
defendants 0%oco et, al and their predecessors in interest, in going to Igualdad
.treet and the maret place of 5aga City, from their residential land and "ac$
 They claimed that have "een long recogni6ed and respected the private legal
easement of road right of #ay 078 years$

 9n )ay 17, 1:;, the defendants and their men constructed a chapel in the
middle of the said right of #ay #hich, accordingly has impeded, o"structed and
distur"ed the continuous exercise of the rights of the plaintis over said right of 
#ay$

9n &uly 18, 1:4 defendants planted #ooden posts, fenced #ith "ar"ed #ire and
closed hermitically the road passage #ay and their right of #ay against the
plainti<s protests and opposition$ This prevented the plaintis from going to or
coming from their homes to Igualdad .treet and the pu"lic maret of the City of 
5aga$

)ssu*( =hether or not the easement of right of #ay can "e acuired thru
prescription$

*l-(

5o$ The decision in this case apparently contradicted the (urisprudence

esta"lished in Dumagas v$ !ishop of &aro that an easement of right of #ay can "e
acuired thru prescription$

 The ma(ority of the &ustices 0this is an en banc proceeding is in the opinion that

an *as*m*n' of righ' of a 'hough i' ma 2* appar*n' is, n*v*r'h*l*ss,
-is"on'inuous or in'*rmi''*n' an-, 'h*r*for*, "anno' 2* a"uir*-
'hrough pr*s"rip'ion, 2u' onl 2 vir'u* of a 'i'l*.

>nder the 5e# Civil Code, easements may "e continuous discontinuous
0intermittent,apparent or non-apparent, discontinuous "eing those used at more
or less long intervals and #hich depend upon acts of man 0'rticles 21$
Continuous and apparent easements are acuired either, "y title or prescription,
continuous non-apparent easements and discontinuous ones #hether apparent
or not, may "e acuired only "y virtue of a title 0'rticles 278 and277

>nder the provisions of the Civil Code, particularly the articles thereof aforecited,
it #ould therefore appear that the easement of right of #ay maynot "e acuired
through prescription$ ?ven 'rticle 1:: of the 9ld Civil Code providing for
prescription of o#nership and other real rights in real property, excludes there
from the exception esta"lished "y 'rticle ;:, referring to discontinuous
easements, such as, easement of right of #ay$

mor v. &lor*n'ino, 74 Phil. 404

G.R. No. L434, "'o2*r 11, 1$43

&a"'s(

9ver 8 years ago, )aria Florentino o#ned a house and a #arehouse in @igan,
Ilocos .ur$ The house had and still has, on the north side, three #indo#s on the
upper story, and a fourth one on the ground +oor$ Through these #indo#s the
house receives light and air from the lot #here the #arehouse stands$

In 1:A she transferred the house and land it is "uilt-on "y #ill to Ba"riel
Florentino and to &ose Florentino 0respondents$ =hile the #arehouse and the
land it is "uilt-on #as transferred to ?ncarnacion Florentino$ >pon the death of 
)aria Florentino, nothing #as done in regard to the #indo#s in uestion$

In 1:11, ?ncarnacion sold here lot and #arehouse to .evero 'mor 0petitioner$
=ho destroyed the #arehouse to "uild a t#o-story #arehouse$

 The respondents led an action to prohi"it petitioner from "uilding the ne#
#arehouse higher than the original one "ecause it #ill shut-o the light and air
that had for many years "een received through the #indo#s mentioned$

)ssu*( +h*'h*r or no' 'h*r* is an *as*m*n' hi"h prohi2i's mor from

-oing 'h* afor*m*n'ion*- "ons'ru"'ion 6in a""or-an"* i'h 'h* /ivil
/o-*8.

*l-(

 es$ The easement involved in this case is of t#o aspectsE light and vie# and
altius non tollendi$ These t#o aspects necessarily go together "ecause an
easement of light and vie# prevents the o#ner of the sevient estate from
"uilding to a height that #ill o"struct the #indo#s$

'rticle 41 applies to a division of property "y succession$ ?asement are

esta"lished "y la# or "y #ill of the o#ners or "y title$

't the time the devisees too possession of their respective portions of the
inheritance, neither the respondents nor )aria ?ncarnacion Florentino said or did
anything #ith respect to the four #indo#s of the respondents house$ The
respondents did not renounce the use of the #indo#s, either "y stipulation or "y
actually closing them permanently$

 The easement #as therefore created from the time of the death of the original
o#ner of "oth estates, so #hen petitioner "ought #arehouse and the land #here
it is construted from ?ncarnancion, the "urden of this easement continued on
the real property so acuired "ecause according to 'rticle ;4, Geasements are
insepara"le from the estate to #hich they actively or passively pertain$H

**Amor failed to prove that the death of the testator occurred before the eectivity of 
the Old Civil Code. The facts show that it happened after the eectivity of the said code
so the law on easement is already applicable. In any case, even if we assume Amor’s
supposition, the law on easement was already interated into the !panish "aw and in
fact, had been established by #urisprudence.
Therefore, Amor is prohibitied from constructin the warehouse above the level of the
window. $The issue includes %uestion as to the applicability of the &Old Civil Code' 
because of the timin of (aria’s death)
Nor'h N*gros v. i-algo, %3 Phil. %%4
G.R. No. L94#334 "'o2*r 31, 1$3%

&a"'s(

5orth 5egros .ugar Co$ 055.C is the o#ner of a site no#n as the Gmill site$H It
is #here its sugar central, #ith its factory "uilding and residence for its
employees and la"orers are located$ It also o#ns the ad(oining sugar plantation
no#n as acienda G!egoJa$H

'cross its properties 55.C "ons'ru"'*- a roa- "onn*"'ing 'h* :mill si'*;
i'h 'h* provin"ial higha $ Through this road it allo#ed vehicles to pass
upon payment of a toll charge of P8$1 for each truc or automo"ile$ Pedestrians
are allo#ed free passage through it$

Immediately ad(oining the Gmill siteH is the hacienda of Kuciano 'guirre, no#n
as acienda G.aJgay,H #here a "illiard hall and a tu"a saloon is "uilt$ Kie other
people in and a"out the place, idalgo used to pass through the said road of the
55.C "ecause it #as his only means of access to the acienda G.aJgayH$

Kater on, "y order of the 55.C , every time that the idalgo passed driving his
automo"ile #ith a cargo of tu"a plainti ,the gateeeper #ould stop him
0asshole and prevent him from passing through said road$ idalgo in such
cases merely deviated from said road  and continued on his #ay to acienda
G.aJgayH across the elds of acienda G!egoJa,H lie#ise "elonging to the
55.C$

)ssu*( +h*'h*r or no' NN</ "an *n=oin i-algo from passing 'h*
prop*r'.

*l-(

59$ The case of an easement of #ay voluntarily constituted in favor of a

community$

's may "e seen from the language of 'rt$ :4, in cases of voluntary easement,
the o#ner is given ample li"erty to esta"lish themE 55.C Gconsidered it
desira"leH to open this road to the pu"lic in general, #ithout imposing any
condition save the payment of a fteen-centavo toll "y motor vehicles, and it
may not no# go "ac on this and deny the existence of an easement$

@oluntary easements are not contractual in natureL they constitute the act of the
o#ner$ If he exacts any condition, lie the payment of a certain indemnity for the
use of the easement, any person #ho is #illing to pay it may mae use of the
easement$ If the contention "e made that a contract is necessary, it may "e
stated that a contract exits from the time all those #ho desire to mae use of the
easement are disposed to pay the reuired indemnity$

55.C contends that the easement of #ay is intermittent in nature and can only
"e acuired "y virtue of a title under 'rt$ ;:$ idalgo, ho#ever, does not lay
claim to it "y prescription$ The title in this case consists in the fact that 55.C has
oered the use of this road to the general pu"lic upon payment of a certain sum
as passage fee in case of motor vehicles$
ere defendant<s contention is, that #hile the road in uestion remains open to
the pu"lic, he has a right to its use upon paying the passage fees reuired "y
55.C$ Indeed the latter may close it at its pleasure, as no period has "een xed
#hen the easement #as voluntarily constituted, "ut #hile the road is thro#n
open, 55.C may not capriciously exclude idalgo from its use$
Furthermore, plainti<s evidence discloses the existence of a forci"le right of #ay
in favor of the o#ner and occupants of the acienda G.aJgayH under the Civil
Code, 'rt$ 24, "ecause, according to said evidence, those living in acienda
G.aJgayH have no access to the provincial road except thru the road in uestion$