Bicol Agro Land V Obias

BICOL AGRO V.
OBIAS CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 172077 : October 9, 2009
Petitioners: BICOL AGRO-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE, INC. (BAPCI)

Respondent: EDMUNDO O. OBIAS, PERFECTO O. OBIAS, VICTOR BAGASINA, ELENA
BENOSA, MELCHOR BRANDES, ROGELIO MONTERO, PEDRO MONTERO,
CLAUDIO RESARI, PILAR GALON, ANTONIO BUISON, PRUDENCIO BENOSA,
JR., MARIA VILLAMER and ROBERTO PADUA
Ponente: PERALTA, J.
Facts:
Sometime in 1972, the Bicol Sugar Development Corporation (BISUDECO) constructed a road
("the disputed road") - measuring approximately 7 meters wide and 2.9 kilometers long. The disputed
road was used by BISUDECO in hauling and transporting sugarcane to and from its mill site and has thus
become indispensable to its sugar milling operations.
On October 30, 1992, petitioner Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Cooperative, Inc. acquired the
assets of BISUDECO. On April 19, 1993, petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents alleging
that on March 27, 1993 and April 3, 1993, respondents unjustifiably barricaded the disputed road by
placing bamboos, woods, placards and stones across it, preventing petitioner's and the other sugar
planter's vehicles from passing through the disputed road, thereby causing serious damage and prejudice
to petitioner.
Petitioner contends that through prolonged and continuous use of the disputed road, BISUDECO
acquired a right of way over the properties of the landowners, which right of way in turn was acquired by
it when it bought BISUDECO's assets. Petitioner prayed that respondents be permanently ordered to
restrain from barricading the disputed road and from obstructing its free passage.
In an Order dated April 19, 1993, the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur ordered
respondents, their agents and representatives to cease and desist from placing barricades on the disputed
road.
However, the respondents denied having entered into an agreement with BISUDECO regarding
the construction and the use of the disputed road. They alleged that BISUDECO, surreptitiously and
without their knowledge and consent, constructed the disputed road on their properties and has since then
intermittently and discontinuously used the disputed road for hauling sugarcane despite their repeated
protests. Respondents claimed they tolerated BISUDECO in the construction and the use of the road since
BISUDECO was a government-owned and controlled corporation, and the entire country was then under
Martial Law. Respondents likewise denied that the road has become a public road, since no public funds
were used for its construction and maintenance.
On June 25, 1997 the RTC against BAPCI due to failure to present concrete evidence to prove
that there was an agreement between BISUDECO and respondents for the construction of the disputed
road. The RTC also held that petitioner was entitled to a compulsory easement of right of way as provided
for under Article 649 of the New Civil Code upon payment of proper indemnity to respondents.
On August 24, 2005, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC that there was no conclusive proof
to sufficiently establish the existence of an agreement between BISUDECO and respondents regarding
the construction of the disputed road. Moreover, the CA also declared that an easement of right of way is
discontinuous and as such cannot be acquired by prescription. The CA likewise affirmed the finding of
the RTC that petitioner was entitled to a compulsory easement of right of way upon payment of proper
indemnity to respondents. The CA, however, declared that ownership over the disputed road should
remain with respondents, despite the grant of a compulsory easement.
Issue:
Whether or not there was an agreement between BISUDECO and respondents for the
construction of the disputed road.
Held:
In order for petitioner to acquire the disputed road as an easement of right-of-way, it was
incumbent upon petitioner to show its right by title or by an agreement with the owners of the lands that
said road traversed.
Easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another
immovable belonging to a different owner. By its creation, easement is established either by law (in
which case it is a legal easement) or by will of the parties (a voluntary easement). In terms of use,
easement may either be continuous or discontinuous. The easement of right of way ' the privilege of
persons or a particular class of persons to pass over another's land, usually through one particular
path or linen - is characterized as a discontinuous easement because its use is in intervals and
depends on the act of man. Because of this character, an easement of a right of way may only be
acquired by virtue of a title.40
Article 622 of the New Civil Code is the applicable law in the case at bar, viz:
Art. 622. Continuous non-apparent easements, and discontinuous ones, whether apparent or not,
may be acquired only by virtue of a title.
Based on the foregoing, in order for petitioner to acquire the disputed road as an easement of
right-of-way, it was incumbent upon petitioner to show its right by title or by an agreement with the
owners of the lands that said road traversed.
Crucial to the petitioner's cause was its burden of proving the existence of the alleged agreement
between BISUDECO and respondents for the construction of the road. It is clear that the plaintiff failed to
present any concrete evidence to prove that there was such an agreement between BISUDECO and
defendants.
The lower court correctly disbelieved the plaintiffs-appellants’ contention that an agreement
existed because there is simply no direct evidence to support this allegation. BAPCI submitted purely
circumstantial evidence that are not sufficiently adequate as basis for the inference than an agreement
existed. By themselves, the circumstances the plaintiffs-appellants cited – i.e., the employment of sixteen
(16) relatives of the defendants-appellants; the defendants-appellants’ unjustified silence; the fact that the
existence of the agreement is known to everyone, etc. – are events susceptible of diverse interpretations
and do not necessarily lead to BAPCI’s desired conclusion.

Bicol Agro Land V Obias

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bicol Agro Land V Obias

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bicol Agro Land V Obias

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BICOL AGRO V.

OBIAS CASE DIGEST

Petitioners: BICOL AGRO-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE, INC. (BAPCI)

You might also like