POSSESSION - fact of possession and the right to such possession

are found in the same person.

Possession - is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a - Ex: By the owner himself, by a lessee or by a
right. usufructuary.
ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION (OAT-IP) Possession in the name of another
1. There must be occupancy, apprehension or taking - possession by a person without any right of his
2. There must be intent to possess (animus possidendi) own and one which is strictly of an agent or merely
Animus Possidendi may be contradicted and rebutted an instrument in the exercise of such possession.
by evidence which tends to prove that the person under - right to the possession is in one person while the
whose power or control the thing in question appears to fact of possession is in another.
be, does not in fact exercise the power or control and - it is not necessary that the owner of a parcel of land
does not intend to do so. should himself occupy the property.
- Ex: Possession by a Caretaker.

PEOPLE VS TIRA SANTOS V MANALILI

Held surveillance operations for drug activities @ house of Topic: Possession in One’s Own Name
Amadeo & Connie.
Tract of land known as "Furukawa Plantation" distributed
Police found a number of drug which was hidden under the among war veterans and deserving civilians.
bed where Amadeo was sleeping.
Manalili filed an application to purchase a property in the
Convicted the spouses for possession of illegal drugs. Fukuwara plantation; and application was favorably acted
upon.
Crime is mala prohibita where criminal intent is not an
essential element thus the INTENT TO POSSESS must be Manalilis left for Manila in 1972 but they appointed an
proved. administrator to oversee the land.
Amadeo’s defense: In 1981 Rodolfo Santos wrote a protest against Manalilis
application; filed a case for Reconveyance and Annulment of
- said that the house the police searched was rented
Title against Manalili.
by his nephew but belied by Connie’s testimony
that the room was occupied by boarders. SC decision:
SC decsion: Circumstance that after the sale, the Manalilis resided in
Manila and Pangasinan is of no moment.
Gave emphasis to the concept of CONTROL and
DOMINION over a thing. It is not necessary that the owner or holder of the thing
exercise personally the rights of possession.
Possession includes actual & constructive possession.
Rights of possession may be exercised through agents or an
Constructive Possession exists when the drug is under the
administrator.
dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right
to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is
found.

They had actual and exclusive possession and control and

dominion over the house, including the room where the
drugs were found.

DEGREES OF POSSESSION REYES VS CA

1. Without any title or right (Ex: Thief) Topic: Possession in One’s Own Name & Prescriptive
2. With a juridical title or right, but not in the concept period for Constructive Trust
of owner (Ex: Lessee)
3. With a just title but not from the true owner (Ex: Reyes sold ½ land to Raymundo.
Buyer in good faith)
4. With a just title from the true owner. In 1969 Reyes sold the remaining ½ land Raymundo. New
title issued to Raymundo.

However, Reyes leased in 1967 the house standing on the

CLASSIFICATION OF POSSESSION UNDER THE property to the Palacios.
CIVIL CODE
In 1987 Raymundo claimed ownership over the whole
1. In one’s own name and In the name of another. property.
2. In the concept of an owner and In the concept of a
holder. In 1987 Reyes filed for Cancellation of Title &
3. In good faith and In bad faith. Reconveyance.

Possession in one’s own name Reyes alleged that the 1969 sale was simulated (no
consideration) and their true agreement embodied in private
- possession anchored on a juridical title or right writing in 1970.
SC decision: Topic: Possession in the concept of a holder.

NB: Action for Reconveyance based on implied or Carlos filed an application for registration of land claiming
constructive trust prescribes in 10 years from the date of to be in OCEN possession for over 50 yrs. Application was
registration, the point of reference being the date of granted.
registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the
certificate of title over the property. Republic appeal; decision was reversed because at the time
of his application property had been sold by her mother to a
But plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust must not be in corporation; such was admitted by Carlos.
possession of the property, otherwise it does not prescribe
w/c in effect is an Action to Quiet Title. Possession and occupation was in the corporation at the time
of his application.
1st : It is not necessary that the owner of a parcel of land
should himself occupy the property as someone in his name SC decision:
may perform the act. Carlos acknowledges the sale of the property to the
The owner has possession either when he himself is corporation; thus, it cannot be said that her possession since
personally in occupation or when another person, who 1996 was under a bona fide claim of ownership.
recognizes his rights as owner, is in such occupancy By reason of the sale, Carlos was no longer in possession in
(Possession in One’s Own Name.) the concept of owner; she was in possession in the concept
Reyes was in actual possession of the property through the of a holder.
Palacios. Only he who possesses the property under a bona fide claim
nd
2 : The action for reconveyance filed has not prescribed. of ownership is entitled to confirmation of title.

3rd : The 2nd DOD was simulated BUKIDNON DOCTORS’ HOSPITAL INC. v MBTC

It is true that as between a public document and a private Topic: Issuance of Writ of Possession
document, the former prevails but the intention of the parties BDC obtained a loan from MBTC with land mortgage as
still is and always will be the primary consideration in security.
determining the true nature of a contract
Land was extrajudicially foreclosed and sold to MBTC.
4th : The act of securing title in the name of Raymundo did
not operate to vest ownership. BDC rent the land to continue its operation but was asked to
vacate thereafter; BDC refused to leave.
Torrens system does not create or vest title. It only
confirms and records title already existing. MBTC filed Ex Parte Motion for a Writ of Possession. RTC
granted.

DBC filed before the SC if WON a writ of possession is the

proper remedy for evicting a mortgagor who became a lessee
Art. 525. The possession of things or rights may be had in of the mortgaged properties after the mortgagee has
one of two concepts: either in the concept of owner, or in consolidated ownership over the properties and was issued
that of the holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the new certificates of title
ownership pertaining to another person SC decision:
Possession in the concept of an owner: Trial court’s issuance of a writ of possession is not only
- A possessor in the concept of an owner may be the superfluous, but improper under the law.
owner himself or one who claims to be so. The rationale for the ministerial issuance of a writ of
- But possession in the concept of owner does not possession is to put the foreclosure buyer in possession of
refer to the belief of the possessor or his intention. It the property sold without delay.
refers to the opinion or belief of the neighbors and
the rest of the world and not that of the possessor. But MBTC is already in material possession of the property .
- Even if the possessor is aware that there is a flaw in
By material occupation of a thing, it is not necessary that the
his title resulting in its invalidation, so long as he
person in possession should be the occupant of the property;
claims ownership of the property and does not
the occupancy can be held by another in his name.
acknowledge in another a superior right , he is still
considered a possessor in the concept of an owner. Where a lease agreement, whether express or implied, is
subsequently entered into by the mortgagor and the
Possession in the concept of a holder:
mortgagee after the expiration of the redemption period and
- Acknowledges in another a superior right which he the consolidation of title in the name of the latter, a case for
believes to be ownership, whether this belief be ejectment or unlawful detainer, not a motion for a writ of
right or wrong. possession, is the proper remedy in order to evict from the
questioned premises a mortgagor-turned-lessee.
A lessee is considered as a possessor in the concept of a
holder with respect to the thing itself. What applies is no longer the law on extrajudicial
foreclosure, but the law on lease.
But he is considered as possessor in the concept of an
owner with respect to their right over the property.

CARLOS VS REPUBLIC POSSESSOR IN GOOD FAITH

He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that In 1960 after lease expiration, Restituta sued Pershing Tan
there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which for unlawful detainer.
invalidates it.
However, In 1962 Jaun & Pershing Tan entered into a barter
The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the over the disputed lot.
validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim, and
absence of intention to overreach another. Pershing Tan, constructed on the bartered land a concrete
building, without any objection on the part of Restituta.
A person who has no title or mode of acquisition but whose
occupation of the land of another is by reason of the latter’s Meanwhile, Restituta lost in the earlier ejectment suit;
tolerance or permission cannot be considered a possessor or Restituta sued both Juan and Tan Queto for reconveyance,
builder in good faith. for annulment of the barter, and for recovery of the land.

Requisites for Possession in Good Faith: Tan Queto insists he is a builder in GF and entitled to
reimbursement.
1. Possessor has a title or mode of acquisition;
2. There is a flaw or defect in the title or mode of SC decision:
acquisition which invalidates it; 1st: The land is conjugal, not paraphernal.
3. Possessor is unaware of the flaw or defect, or he
believes that the thing belongs to him. Ownership was acquired by the spouses because of the
contract of sale.
Possessors in the concept of a holder cannot be possessors
in good faith Allegation of Restituta that it was a donation was not given
validity by the court.
- Such as mere tenant, agent or usufructuary
- A lessee cannot be a possessor in good faith as he  Oral donation of the lot cannot be a valid Donation
has no pretension to be an owner. Inter-vivos.
- Lessee knows that his occupation of the premises  Cannot be a valid Donation Mortis Causa for the
will continue only for the life of the lease. formalities of a will were not complied with.

Allegation that transfer was a conveyance to Restituta of her

hereditary share not sustained because transmission of future
FLORENTINO V SUPERVALUE inheritance is generally prohibited.
Topic: Lessee cannot be a possessor in good faith; No 2nd: Tan Queto may be said to be the OWNER-
reimbursement. POSSESSOR of the lot.
Supervalue lessor, Florentino lessse. He is a builder-possessor because he is the OWNER
Supervalue refused to renew its Contracts of Lease with himself.
Florentino. If the flaw or defect does not result in the invalidation of the
Supervalue took possession of the store space and title, he is not merely a possessor in good faith but the owner
confiscated Florentino’s equipment and personal belongings thereof.
found therein after the expiration of the lease contract. There is no such flaw or defect because it is he himself (not
SC decision: somebody else) who is the owner of the property.

Full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of

the premises until reimbursement is made, applies only to a RIVERA V TRINIDAD
possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds on land with
the belief that he is the owner thereof. Land owned by Dolores. Maximo Trinidad constructed a
building with Dolores’ consent.
As a lessee, cannot be considered a builder in good faith;
Supervalue may appropriate the improvements introduced on Thereafter, Dolores filed an unlawful detainer against
the leased premises without any obligation to reimburse the Maximo.
Florentino.
Some advised Dolores to sell the land to some other person
who will exercise the power of terminating the lease.

PERSHING TAN CUETO V CA Land was sold to Rivera.

Spouses Restituta and Juan. Issue: Whether the court had jurisdiction of an action in
which a purchaser seeks to oust a tenant under the conditions
The disputed lot allegedly acquired by Restituta either thru existing in this case.
donation or sale (was not clear); transaction took place
during her mother’s lifetime SC decision:

After marriage, Juan was pronounced as owner of the lot Lower court had jurisdiction
after application.
Plaintiff is entitled to judgment; declared to be entitled to
In 1949 Lease contract between Pershing Tan & Restituta possession of the lot.
(w/ consent of her husband).
Rivera, being the new owner of the property, is entitled to Note: Possession is not acquired in the absence of
possession; Maximo, as lessee, merely possesses the intent to possess, even if there is a physical holding
property as a holder. of the thing.

Presumption Of Good Faith DOCTRINE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION - the

actual possession of part of the property is deemed to extend
- Good faith is always presumed. to the whole because possession in the eyes of the law does
- Possession in good faith ceases from the moment not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square
defects in the title are made know to the meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession.
possessors , by extraneous evidence or by suit for
recovery of the property by the true owner. For this doctrine to apply, the following must be present:

a. The alleged possessor must be in actual possession

of a portion of the property;
WONG VS CA b. He is claiming ownership of the whole area;
Topic: When Good Faith ceases. c. The remainder of the area must not be in the
adverse possession of another;
In 1972 Manuel purchased land from William Giger by d. The area claimed must be reasonable.
virtue DOS with right to repurchase.
The application of the doctrine of constructive possession
He knew that laborers of Wong were in the land as early as shall depend on the size of the tract in controversy, with
Aug 1976; he did not do anything to stop them. reference to the portion actually in possession of the
claimant.
Before July 1976, Wong bought the land from William, not
knowing that Manuel was in possession thereof.

In Nov 1976 Wong received a copy of Manuel's complaint Material occupation referred to in Art. 531 involves only
for forcible entry with summons to answer. corporeal objects and not to acquisition of possession over a
right.
SC decision:
Art. 531 includes two forms of constructive delivery:
1st: The sale to Wong failed to pass the possession of the
property because there is an impediment — the possession  TRADICION BREVI MANU - like when a lessee
exercised by Manuel. of a private property ultimately becomes its owner
 TRADICION CONSTITUTUM
Execution of a sale thru a public instrument shall be
POSSESSORIUM - seller transfers ownership and
equivalent to the delivery of the thing. However, if the
retains a usufruct.
purchaser cannot have the enjoyment and material tenancy of
the thing because such tenancy and enjoyment are opposed Subjecting the thing to the Action Of Our Will; two
by another, then delivery has not been effected. forms of Constructive Delivery:
On appeal Wong argued that there is no legal or factual basis  TRADICION SYMBOLICA takes place through
for the payment of monthly rentals because bad faith on his the delivery of symbols or some object to represent
part was never proved. those to be delivered, thus placing the thing under
the control of the transferee.
2nd: Wong’s good faith ceased at the time he received
 TRADICION LONGA MANU is effected by the
Manuel's complaint for forcible entry with summons.
transferor pointing out to the transferee the things
A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits only so long which are being transferred.
as his possession is not legally interrupted, and such
interruption takes place upon service of judicial summons.
MANGASER V UGAY
MODES OF ACQUIRING POSSESSION
(ME-S-PA) Mangaser, registered owner and possessor of land covered
by OCT.
1. By material occupation of a thing or the exercise of
a right; In 2006 Ugay occupied a portion of his property without his
2. By subjecting the thing or right to the action of our consent by constructing a residential house.
will; and
3. By the proper acts and legal formalities established Mangaser filed for Forcible Entry.
for the acquisition of such right.
Ugay’s defense: he has been a resident of the area since
REQUISITES FOR ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION birth.
(ME-AP)
Ugay alleged that Manager was never in actual possession of
1. Corpus or Material holding of the thing or Exercise the property and it was only on Oct 2006 when he discovered
of the right. the alleged intrusion.
2. Animus Possidendi– the intent to possess a thing or
Issue: Whether Mangaser was able to established prior
right.
possession over the subject property

SC decision:
1st: Mangaser acquired possession by Juridical Act: Issuance If no evidence is presented proving bad faith the
of a Free Patent & Its subsequent Registration covered by presumption of good faith remains.
OCT.
Its effects must be suffered only by the person who acted
Possession can be acquired not only by material in bad faith.
occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the
action of one’s will or by the proper acts and legal
formalities established for acquiring such right. INSTANCES WHERE POSSESSION IS NOT
The issuance of an OCT to Mangaser evidences ownership ACQUIRED (FI-T-CU)
and from it, a right to the possession of the property flows. 1. Use of Force or Intimidation
His claim of possession is coupled with tax declarations. 2. Acts merely Tolerated
While tax declarations are not conclusive proof of possession 3. Clandestine And Unknown Acts
of a parcel of land, they are good indicia of possession in the Use of Force or Intimidation
concept of an owner.
- A person in possession cannot be ejected by force,
ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION OVER RIGHTS not even by the owner.
(ESP)
HEIRS OF LAURORA V STERLING
1) to exercise such right
2) by subjecting it to the action of our will Topic: Force or Intimidation
3) by proper actions and legal formalities.
Sps Laurora was forcibly ejected by Sterling Technopark;
TRANSFER OF POSSESSION THROUGH bulldozed and with the use of armed men and by means of
SUCCESSION threats and intimidation.

- without need of physical or material holding of the SC decision:

property
Even if the heirs are mere usurpers of the land owned by
- such possession is deemed transmitted to the heir
Sterling, still they are entitled to remain on it until they are
without interruption from the moment of death of
lawfully ejected therefrom
the decedent if the heir accepts the inheritance
- this rule will apply even if the heir is not in actual
physical possession of the property.
- if the heir validly renounces the inheritance, he will Acts merely Tolerated
be deemed never to have possessed the property
- Acts merely tolerated do not affect possession
even if he is in actual possession of the same.
- Persons who occupy the land of another at the
CONSEQUENCES OF WRONGFUL POSSESSION latter’s tolerance, without any contract between
them, are necessarily bound by an implied promise
- The existence of bad faith on the part of one that they will vacate the same upon demand.
possessor does not prejudice his successors in - Mere permissive use cannot be made the basis of
interest. acquisitive prescription, no matter how long the
- Bad faith is not transmissible. possession may be.
- Bad faith is personal; its effects must be suffered
only by the person who acted in bad faith. His heir RESUENA V CA
should not be saddled with such consequences.
Topics: Acts merely tolerated

Borromeo is a co-owner of undivided property. Filed an

ESCRITOR V IAC ejectment case against Resuena.

Topic: Bad Faith is not transmissible Resuena occupying a portion of property upon permission of
other co-owners.
Escritor’s application for land titling was approved on May
1958; it took possession of the property. Resuena’s defense: Borromeo waived in favor of his co-
owners the portion that she is presently occupying. He is
Simon filed on Aug 1958 a petition for review contending now estopped from claiming the portion.
fraud in Escritor’s application
SC decision:
Escritor died; his heirs took possession of the property.
No evidence presented by Resuena on right to occupy, such
In 1971 (13 years later), Simon’s petition was granted as no lease contract that would vest the right to stay on the
ordering the heirs to vacate. property.
In 1975, filed another case for Recovery of Damages for the 1st: The absence of any document or any occupancy right of
fruits of the land which was allegedly possessed by the heirs Resueno is a negation of their claim that they were allowed
unlawfully in bad faith. to construct their houses thereon and to stay thereon until
further notice.
SC decision:
2nd: Persons who occupy the land of another at the latter's
Heirs of Escritor not liable for damages.
tolerance or permission, without any contract between them,
Bad faith is not transmissible from one person to another, not are necessarily bound by an implied promise that they will
even to an heir.
vacate the same upon demand, failing in which a summary Tax declarations can be strong evidence of ownership when
action for ejectment is the proper remedy against them. accompanied by possession for a period sufficient for
prescription.
- 3rd: Estoppel is effective only as between the
parties thereto or their successors in interest. A 2nd: MWSS acquired ownership by prescription; MWSS
stranger to a transaction is neither bound by, nor in possessed the land in the concept of owner for more than
a position to take advantage of an estoppel arising thirty years preceding the application.
therefrom.
By placing the pipelines under the land, there was material
occupation of the land subjecting the land to its will and
Clandestine or Unknown Acts control.

- Acts which are executed clandestinely and without 3rd: Possession is “open”; the existence of the pipes was
the knowledge of the possessor do not affect indicated above the ground by "pilapils.”
possession.
- The legal possessor’s possession is not deemed Since they were not able to prove that possession was
interrupted clandestine, continuous possession by MWSS was
- Done clandestinely if the same is done in secret, established.
hidden or concealed.
- Note: If the act is done publicly, even without the
knowledge of the possessor, his possession will be Conflict Over Possession De Facto
affected.
- The law does not recognize the possibility that
- On the part of the actual possessor, his possession
possession de facto may reside at the same time in
acquired through clandestine acts not known to the
two different personalities unless they are co-
legal possessor will not ripen into ownership
possessors.
through prescription because one of the
requirements thereof – that the possession be Rules of preference:
public in character- is not present.
a) The present possessor shall be preferred;
REYES VS PRIETO b) If there are two possessors, the one longer in
possession is preferred;
Topic: Clandestine or Unknown Acts
c) It the dates of possession are the same, the one
Prieto owner of land, alleging Reyes without his knowledge who presents a title is preferred.
built a hut.
Note: If all of the foregoing are equal, the thing shall be
In 1952, Reyes refused to vacate alleging having bought the placed in judicial depsit pending determination of its
lot from Dominador in Dec. 1948. possession or ownership through proper proceeding.

Prieto learned only of Reyes’ house in 1952.

Reyes alleged that MTC did not have jurisdiction over the YU V PACLEB
for forcible entry because she had been in possession of the
In 1992, Javier executed a contract of sale of land in favor of
property since Dec 1948 and the action was started only in
Yu
1952.
Javier acquired it from Rebecca, who in turn acquired it from
Issue: Reyes alleged that it was error for the court to start the
Baltazar Pacleb. However, title remained with Baltazar (who
counting of the initiation of the summary action only from
was in US).
the time the owner learned of her encroachment.
Lot was also occupied by Ramon Pacleb, son of Baltazar
SC decision:
Pacleb, as tenants.
Reyes contention is unmeritorious.
In 1992, Ramon and his wife allegedly surrendered
The owner of the land could not be expected to enforce his possession of their portion to Yu, who appointed Ramon as
right to it's possession against the illegal occupant and sue their trustee over the subject lot.
the latter before learning of the clandestine intrusion
Yu possessed the land from 1992 to 1995.

Baltazar returned in 1995 & entered the property.

SANTIAGO V MWSS
Baltazar refused to vacate despite demand from Yu.
Topic: Clandestine or Unknown Acts
Yu filed forcible entry against Baltazar.
MWSS filed an application for registration of title of land;
CA ruled that the possession of Pacleb ante-dated that of
claiming OCEN possession since 1945.
Yu.
Heirs of Manahan filed an opposition alleging ownership.
SC decision:
SC decision:
1st: The occupancy can be held by another in this name as in
st
1 : MWSS presented tax declarations to buttress its this case where the son of Pacleb was in possession of the
ownership of the land. property, in the name of his father.
Possession always includes the idea of occupation. It is not Possession of Bolante, which was public, peaceful and
necessary that the person in possession should himself be the uninterrupted, already ripened into ownership.
occupant.
3rd: Bolante herself, after her father’s death, declared and
nd
2 : Yu failed to convince the court of their actual occupancy paid realty taxes for the disputed land
of the subject land
Tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation,
 First, Yu acknowledged that Ramon occupied when coupled with proof of actual possession of the
part of the land as tenants of Baltazar. property, can be the basis of a claim for ownership through
 Second, there was no clear proof in the records prescription.
of the appointment of Ramon as Yu’s trustee
NOTE: Because Cequena farmed a portion of the land for
save their self-serving statements to this effect
more than 30 years, can claim ownership over the portion
3rd: Tax declarations and receipts in 1994 and 1995 were in that they actually farmed.
the name of Pacleb established their possession of the
The following are effects of possession in the concept of
property.
owner:
The payment of real estate tax is one of the most persuasive
and positive indications showing the will of a person to 1. It raises a disputable presumption of ownership.
2. It creates a disputable presumption that the
possess or with claim of ownership.
possessor has just title and he cannot be obliged to
Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man show it.
has to have his feet on every square meter of the ground 3. It can ripen into ownership through acquisitive
before he is deemed in possession prescription, subject to additional requirements
under Art. 1118 of the Civil Code.
4th: In view of the evidence establishing Pacleb’s continuing
possession of the subject property, Yu’s allegation that Art. 1118. Possession has to be in the concept of an owner,
Pacleb deprived them of actual possession by means of force public, peaceful and uninterrupted.
was clearly untenable.
MODES OF LOSING POSSESSION (AA-D0-PO)
Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in
1. Abandonment of the thing
two different personalities except in the cases of co-
2. Assigning the thing to another, either by onerous or
possession.
gratuitous title
3. Destruction to total loss of the thing or because is
goes Out of commerce
CEQUENA V BOLANTE 4. The Possession of Another, subject to the
Land originally declared for taxation purposes in the name of provisions of Art. 537, if the new possession has
Sinforoso Mendoza. lasted more than one year. But the real right of
possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten years.
Sinforoso died in 1930.
Art. 537 Acts merely tolerated, and those executed
His brother, Margarito took possession & cultivated the land clandestinely and without the knowledge of the possessor of
with his son Cequena. a thing, or by violence, do not affect possession.

Also, Bolante (Son of Sinforoso) and his mother continued

residing on the land. Paid RPT from 1932-1948.
POSSESSION OF MOVABLES
In 1953 Margarito declared the land for taxation purposes.
Paid RPT from 1952. Margarito died & survived by his DOCTRINE OF IRREVINDICABILITY - Possession of
Cequena. movables acquired in good faith does not only create a
presumption of ownership but it is already equivalent to title.
In 1985 Cequena was physically ousted by Bolante, thus It is valid even against the true owner, except upon proof of
Cequena contended that Bolante came into possession loss or illegal deprivation.
through force.

SC decision:
For possession of a movable to be considered equivalent to
1st: Cequena did not lose legal possession because title, the following requisites must be present:
possession cannot be acquired by force. However, possession
by Cequena does not prevail over that of Bolante. 1. Good Faith;
2. Possesison in the concept of an Owner.
2nd: While Cequena was in possession before 1985. such
possession was not exclusive, as Bolante also acquired Exceptions to the rule on Irrevindicability:
possession of the land before 1985 1. When the thing was lost;
SC favored Bolante; has been in possession for a longer 2. When the owner has been unlawfully deprived
period, benefitting from her father’s tax declaration of the thereof.
land since 1926. Owner has a right to recover the thing, not only from the
Bolante’ possession was not disturbed until 1953, when the finder, thief or robber, but also from a third person who may
father of Cequena claimed the land. Cequena’s father have acquired it in good faith.
acquired joint possession only in 1952.
If acquired in GF at a public sale, , the owner can recover it 1st: Such proof is not necessary because possession of
only upon reimbursement of the price paid by the possessor. movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a
title.
PALERO-TAN v. URDANETA
2nd: EDCA was less than cautious. It did not verify the
Tan is a Court Stenographer who lost her pieces of jewelry in
buyer’s identity although it was easy enough to do this. It did
her drawer at the office.
not wait to clear the check of this unknown drawer.
Urdaneta, utility worker, confessed that he found Tan’s
3rd: It indicated in the sales invoice issued to him, by the
jewels in the court's premises.
printed terms thereon, that the books had been paid for on
SC decision: delivery, thereby vesting ownership in the buyer.

Urdaneta had the intention to appropriate the jewelry to EDCA’s defense: There was a failure of consideration that
himself had these not been discovered by his wife. nullified the contract of sale between it and Cruz.

When a person finds a thing that has been lost or misplaced But a contract of sale is consensual and is perfected once
by the owner, and takes the thing into his hands, he acquires agreement is reached between the parties on the subject
physical custody only and does not become vested with matter and the consideration. Ownership of the thing sold
legal possession. shall be transferred to the vendee upon actual or constructive
delivery thereof
Whoever finds a movable, which is not treasure, must return
it to its previous possessor. The SC found no justice in transferring EDCA's loss to the
Santos who had acted in good faith, and with proper care.
If the latter is unknown, the finder shall immediately
deposit it with the mayor of the city or municipality EASEMENT
where the finding has taken place.
The one which provides the easement is called the servient
estate.

The immovable in favor of which the easement is established

is called the dominant estate.
CRUZ V PAHATI
Easement is real right
Car owned by Nothern Motors. Sold to Chinaman, then sold
to Belizo, then sold to Cruz (car COR is missing). - An encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for
the benefit of another immovable belonging to a
Belizo, a car dealer offered to sell the car to prospective different owner. An easement can also be
buyer. Cruz gave the car to Belizo with authorization letter. established for the benefit of a community
- it is constituted on the thing itself and not upon the
Belizo was able to secure registration of the car in his name
owner or its occupant.
thru falsification.
- right of easement is always enjoyed over an
Belizo sold it to Pahati. immovable property.
- constituted over another’s property.
Cruz filed for Replevin against Pahati. - serves as a limitation on the title of the owner of the
servient estate, specifically with regards to his right
Who between Cruz and Pahati has a better right over the
to use the property.
car?
- the owner of the servient estate retains the
Cruz has better right. ownership of the portion on which the easement is
established.
Cruz therefore can still recover the possession of the car
even if Pahati acquired it in good faith. An easement can exist only when the servient and the
dominant estate belong to different owners.
It cannot be disputed that Cruz had been illegally deprived
thereof because of the ingenious scheme utilized by Belizo As such, when there is a merger in the same person of the
to enable him to dispose of it as if he were the owner thereof. ownership of the dominant and servient estates, the
easement is extinguished.
EDCA v. SANTOS
DICHOSO V MARCOS
EDCA sold 406 books to Prof. Jose Cruz, who ordered thru
phone, payable COD. Dichoso asked for easement of ROW from Marcos
contending that the latter’s lot is the shortest.
Books were delivered and paid thru check.
Marcos maintained that that there is an existing easement of
Cruz sold 120 books to Santos. right of way available
Cruz ordered again even before his check could be cleared. SC decision:
EDCA had the police capture Cruz & seize the books from Mere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is
Santos. Santos demanded the return of the books. required by law as the basis of setting up a compulsory
Should the books be returned to Santos? easement.

Defense of EDCA that Santos have not established her There must be real, not fictitious or artificial, necessity for it
ownership absent presentation of receipt of purchase.
When there is already an existing adequate outlet from the
dominant estate to a public highway, even when the said
outlet, be inconvenient, the need to open up another Legal or compulsory easements are those which can be
servitude is entirely unjustified. enforced by force of law and may be established even
against the will of the owner of the servient estate.
KINDS OF EASEMENT:
1. As to the recipient of the benefit: Voluntary easement is constituted by will or agreement of
a. real the parties or by reason of the will of the servient owner.
b. personal Continuous easement – those without the intervention of
any act of man (Ex: Drainage).
2. As to its source:
a. legal (established by law) Discontinuous easement - if it is used at intervals and
i. public legal easement depends on the act of man (Ex: ROW)
ii. private legal easement
b. voluntary (established by the will of the
owners) ABELLANA V CA

3. As to its exercise: (CAP) Abellana, together with other, asked that the construction of
a. continuous or discontinuous high concrete wall of a subdivision be removed and that the
b. apparent or non-apparent road be opened to them.
c. positive or negative
Abellana’s assumption that an easement of ROW is
Real Easement - encumbrance is imposed upon an continuous and apparent and may be acquired by
immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging prescription.
to a different owner. The right over the easement resides in
SC decision:
the estate itself and not in the physical person who
successively occupies or enjoys it. It is imposed upon the The use of a footpath or road may be apparent but it is not
servient estate, for the enjoyment of the dominant estate. a continuous easement because its use is at intervals and
depends upon the acts of man.
Personal Easement - encumbrance imposed upon an
immovable for the benefit of a community or of one or more Hence, a right of way is not acquired by prescription.
persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong.
There is no owner of the dominant estate to speak of.
Apparent easement - which are made known and are
continually kept in view by external signs (Ex: ROW).
SOLID MANILA CORP. v. BIO HONG TRADING CO.
Non-apparent easement - show no external indication of
Fact of easement annotated in the TCT of Bio Hong even their existence (Ex: easement of not building beyond a
prior to its purchase. certain height).
“portion thereof have been converted into a private Positive easement - imposes upon the owner of the servient
alley for the benefit of neighboring estates” estate the obligation of allowing something to be done on his
property (Ex: ROW).
Thereafter it constructed a gate that hampered the use of the
alley. Negative easement - prohibits the owner of the servient
estate form doing something which he could lawfully do if
Solid Manila filed an injunction suit against Bio Hong to
the easement did not exist (Ex: not to build higher).
have gates removed.
CHARACTERISTICS OF EASEMENT
Bio Hong contended that easement had been extinguished by
merger in the same person of the dominant and servient 1. Inherence or Inseparability
estates upon its purchase of the property from its former 2. Indivisibility
owner.

SC decision:

No merger. SOLID MANILA V BIO HONG

A merger exists when ownership of the dominant and Solid Manila contention that alley pertaining to the easement
servient estates are consolidated in the same person. of right of way, was not included in the sale to Bio Hong.
The servitude is a personal servitude constituted for the Easements are inseparable from the estate to which they
benefit of the community. actively or passively belong. Servitudes are accessories to
the tenements of which they form part.
A personal easement is imposed upon an immovable for the
benefit of a community or of one or more persons.

The easement being a personal easement, there is no owner MODES OF ACQUIRING EASEMENT (TP-DFA)
of a dominant tenement to speak of. It was constituted in
favor of the public at large. 1. By title
2. By prescription of ten years – for continuous and apparent
Hence, defense of Bio Hong was not valid. easements
3. By deed of recognition (Art. 623) Said property was transferred to several owners and such
4. By final judgment (Art. 623) was consistently annotated. Unisource took such property.
5. By apparent sign established by the owner of two
adjoining estates. (Art. 624) Hidalgo’s property was transferred to Chung. Unisource filed
for the cancellation of the voluntary easement of ROW after
it found that the dominant estate has no more use for the
easement since it has another adequate outlet to a public
By prescription road.
- regardless of GF or BF SC decision:
- possession must be adverse (public & contuous).
- If positive, commences at the date of enjoyment of Unisource itself admitted that a voluntary easement of right
easement. of way exists in favor Chung.
- If negative, from the day the instrument
acknowledged before a notary public. It cannot now claim that what exists is a legal easement and
that the same should be cancelled since the dominant estate
Note: If the owner of the servient estate denies the is not anymore an enclosed estate as it has an adequate
existence of the easement or refuses to executed the deed access to a public road.
of recognition, the existence of the easement may be
established in a judicial proceeding through A voluntary easement of right of way, like any other
preponderance of evidence. contract, could be extinguished only by mutual agreement or
by renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate.

CORTES VS YU-TIBO Although the easement does not appear in the title of Chung,
the easement subsists.
Cortes filed an action to restrain Yu-Tibo from his plan in his
house that will cover ½ of the window of Cortes, depriving Registration of the dominant estate under the Torrens
the latter of air & light. system without the annotation of the voluntary easement in
its favor does not extinguish the easement.
Cortes contention that it was positive easement, which
allowed him to acquire by prescription (use of his window It is the registration of the servient estate as free, that is,
for 59 years) an easement of light in his favor and as a without the annotation of the voluntary easement, which
servitude against Yu-Tibo. extinguishes the easement.

Yu-Tibo’s contention that it was negative easement. The fact that Chung subdivided the property into different
owners does not extinguish the easement. Easements are
indivisible.
SC decision:

Opening a window in his building does not, by such act,

establish any easement, because the property is used by its MENDOZA V ROSEL
owner in the exercise of dominion or ownership. Topic: Easement’s Existence Known To Owner Of
Easement is a negative. Servient Estate Equivalent To Registration.

Cortes not having executed any notarized, formal act of Rosel sued Mendoza to forbid Mendoza from closing an
opposition to the right Yu-Tibo to build higher, the running easement of ROW.
of the prescriptive period has not commenced. Mendoza insisted that their TCT do not mention any lien or
encumbrance on their lots, they are purchasers in good faith
and for value, and as such have the right to demand from
LIWAG VS. HAPPY GLEN LOOP Rosel some payment for the use of the alley.

Liwag demanded the removal of the water tank of the SC decision:

subdivision built in his lot. Homeowners refused to comply;
they filed a case against Liwag. It was found that the existence of the easement of ROW was
known to Mendoza, who must respect the same, in spite of
Issue: Whether an easement of Water facility existed in the the fact that their TCT do not mention any burden or
said lot. easement.

An easement of water facility was acquired by the Knowledge is as binding as registration.

homeowners through prescription.
EASEMENT BY APPARENT SIGN
The water facility is an encumbrance on the lot for the
benefit of the community. (ART. 624)

Because for more than 30 years, the facility was 1. That there exists an apparent sign of servitude
continuously used by the residents. between the two estates.
2. That at the time of the establishment of such sign,
the ownership of the two estates resided in one
person.
UNISOURCE VS CHUNG 3. That the sign of the easement was established by
Sandico’s property contains memorandum of encumbrance the owner of both estates;
of a voluntary easement in favor of Francisco M. Hidalgo. 4. That the ownership over the two estates is later
divided, either by alienation or partition
 5. That at the time of the division of ownership, Maria Florentino owned a House & Warehouse. The will of
nothing is stated in the document that is contrary to Maria provides that the House will go to Gabriel Florentino
the easement, nor is the sign of the easement while the Warehouse will go to Maria Encarnacion
removed before the execution of the document Florentino.

Art. 624 provides for acquisition of easement by title Maria sold the warehouse to Severo Amor. The latter
through the operation of law. destroyed it and started to build a 2-storey building.

Contemplates of a situation where an estate belonged Florentino filed an action to prohibit Amor from building
previously to one person. If one of the estates was alienated, which would shut off the light and air from their windows.
resulting in the division of the property, but prior to the
division, an apparent sign of an easement was present, an SC decision:
easement is created by way of title upon the division of The existence of the apparent sign, to wit, the four
the two estates, unless at the time of the division of the windows under consideration, had the same character
ownership, the contrary should be provided in the title of and effect as a title of acquisition of the easement of light
conveyance; or the apparent sign should be removed before and view by Florentino upon the death of the original owner.
the execution of the deed.
The existence of the apparent sign is equivalent to a title,
Art. 624. The existence of an apparent sign of when nothing to the contrary is said or done by the two
easement between two estates, established or owners.
maintained by the owner of both, shall be
considered, should either of them be alienated, as a There is an implied contract created between them that the
title in order that the easement may continue easements in question should be constituted.
actively and passively, unless, at the time the
When Amor bought this lot from the original coheir, the
ownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary
windows on Florentino’s house were visible..
should be provided in the title of conveyance of
either of them, or the sign aforesaid should be Amor was not an innocent purchaser, as he was in duty
removed before the execution of the deed. This bound to inquire into the significance of the windows.
provision shall also apply in case of the division of
a thing owned in common by two or more persons. INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE - is one who
buys the property of another without notice that some other
person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and
fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any
GARGATOS VS TAN YANON
notice of another person’s claim.
Topic: Art. 624 Easement By Apparent Sign

Sanz owned a lot, subdivided it and was acquired by Tan

VALDERRAMA VS NORTH NEGROS SUGAR
Yanon & Gargantos.
CENTRAL
Tan Yanon filed an action to restrain Gargantos from
Hacienda owners entered into a milling contract with Osorio.
constructing a building that would prevent him from
Hacienda owners provided land to Osorio for the
receiving light and enjoying the view through the window of
construction of a railroad for the transport of sugarcane.
his house.
Noth Negros acquired the rights of Osorio. It entered into
He will withdraw his objection if the building is erected at a
milling contracts with other when Hacienda owners could
distance of not less than three meters from the boundary line
not provide.
between their lots.
Hacienda owners filed complaint , alleging that the easement
Issue: Has Tan Yanon acquired an easement of light and
of way, was only for the transport of the sugarcane of the
view against the property of Gargantos?
landowners where the railroad passed.
Yes.
Issue: Does North Negros have the right to transport
The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two sugarcane on the tracks owned by the hacienda owners?
estates, established by the proprietor of both, shall be
Yes. because the easement was created for the benefit of
considered, if one of them is alienated, as a title so that the
Osorio.
easement will continue actively and passively, unless at the
time the ownership of the two estate is divided, the contrary Since the easement was created for the benefit of the
is stated in the deed of alienation of either of them, or the central, it may cause wagons to pass through it as many
sign is made to disappear before the instrument is executed. times as it may deem fit, according to the needs of the
central.
The deed sale did not provide that the easement of light
and view would not be established. In the milling contract between the parties, there was no
prohibition from entering into milling contracts with other
The existence of the doors and windows on the Tan Yanon,
planters which would allow the central to cover its capacity.
is equivalent to a title, for the visible and permanent sign
of an easement is the title that characterizes its existence. Issue: Does the transport of sugar cane from other planters
alter the easement and make it more burdensome?
AMOR VS FLORENTINO
Hacienda owners insist that by extending use of the road to
Topic: Art. 624 Easement By Apparent Sign & Innocent
accommodate the other planters. It would occupy greater
Purchaser for Value
area of land of the servient estate --- untenable.
The railroad will continue to occupy the same area. indemnity shall consist in the payment of the
damage caused by such encumbrance.
The dominant owner alone has the obligation to shoulder the
expenses of the necessary works. The servient estate will be This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of
obliged to contribute only if he will make use of the the immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts.
easement in any manner.
Art. 650. The easement of right of way shall be
MODES OF EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENT: established at the point least prejudicial to the
(MNI-ERR) servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this
rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to
1. By merger a public highway may be the shortest.
In a real easement, there should two distinct immovables Requisites for the grant of a compulsory easement of
belonging to different owners. If there is a merger in the right of way:
same person of the ownership of the dominant and servient
estate, the easement is extinguished. 1. That the dominant estate is surrounded by other
immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public
A personal easement established for the benefit of a highway.
particular person is also extinguished if the holder of the 2. After payment of proper indemnity
easement acquires ownership of the servient estate. But if 3. That the isolation was not due to acts of the
the personal easement is established for the benefit of a proprietor of the dominant estate
community, the fact that one of the members of the 4. That the right of way claimed is at the point least
community acquires ownership of the servient estate will not prejudicial to the servient estate; and insofar as
result in a genuine merger that will terminate the personal consistent with this rule, where the distance from
easement. (Solid Manila v Bio Hong) the dominant estate to a public highway may be the
2. By non-user for 10 years shortest.
3. By impossibility of use COSTABELLA V CA
4. By expiration of the term or fulfillment of the
resolutory condition Topic: Art. 649 & 650
5. By renunciation
6. By redemption Costabella constructed a resort. Aurora filed an action for
injunction against Costabella, assailing the closure of the
Note: The circumstance which renders the use of the original passageway, which Aurora claimed was an “ancient
easement impossible must not be in the nature of a road right of way."
fortuitous event. If it is due to a fortuitous event, the
easement is merely suspended. Costabella also alleged that the group of Aurora were not
entirely dependent on the subject passageway as they had
An easement of right of way may be acquired ONLY by another existing and adequate access to the public road
virtue of a title, either through other properties.
voluntarily or compulsorily.
SC decision:
A voluntary easement of ROW is constituted by covenant.
In such a situation, it is not required that the dominant Complaint was dismissed.
estate be isolated and without an adequate outlet to a public Convenience of the dominant estate was never a gauge for
highway. the grant of compulsory right of way. There must be a real
But if an estate is isolated, the grant of easement of ROW is necessity and not mere convenience for the dominant estate
compulsory and hence, legally demandable, subject to to acquire such easement .
indemnity and must be with the concurrence of the The isolation of the dominant estate is also dependent on the
conditions enumerated in Art. 649 and 650. particular need of the dominant owner, and the estate itself
Art. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue need not be totally landlocked. What is important to consider
of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, is whether or not a right of way is necessary to fill a
which is surrounded by other immovables reasonable need therefor by the owner.
pertaining to other persons and without adequate Easement of ROW is a discontinuous one which may only
outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a be acquired by virtue of a title and not by prescription
right of way through the neighboring estates, after (not in judge’s ppt)
payment of the proper indemnity.
But while a right of way is legally demandable, the owner
Should this easement be established in such a of the dominant estate is not at liberty to impose one based
manner that its use may be continuous for all the on arbitrary choice. Under Article 650 of the Code, it shall
needs of the dominant estate, establishing a be established upon two criteria: (1) at the point least
permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of prejudicial to the servient state; and (2) where the distance
the value of the land occupied and the amount of to a public highway may be the shortest.
the damage caused to the servient estate.
"Least prejudice" prevails over "shortest distance.”
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary
passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded Yet, each case must be weighed according to its individual
by others and for the gathering of its crops through merits. A longer way may be established to avoid injury to
the servient estate without a permanent way, the the servient tenement.

FRANCISCO V IAC
Topic: Art. 649 & 650 least prejudice criterion must prevail over the shortest
distance criterion.
Ramos was granted access to the public road through Lot B
but he gave up that right of access by walling-off his WOODRIDGE VS ARB
property from the passageway,
Topic: Payment of Indemnity
If lot B could no longer be used, it was because he himself
have closed it off by erecting a stone wall on his lot. It seems Woodridge School filed a complaint to enjoin ARB from
that what Ramos wanted was to have a right of passage depriving them of the use of the subject subdivision road.
through Francisco's land, as it was more convenient to him. ARB fenced the perimeter of the road fronting the properties
SC decision: of Woodridge, thus, effectively cutting off the latter's access
to and from the public highway.
An owner cannot by his own act, isolate his property from a
public highway and then claim an easement of way through CA decision:
an adjacent estate. Road is private property; hence, ARB can exclude
The convenience of the dominant estate has never been the Woodridge from the use thereof.
gauge for the grant of compulsory right of way. The true Compulsory ROW exists in favor of Woodridge and awarded
standard for the grant is adequacy. P500,000.00 indemnity to ARB for the use of the road lot.
Hence, when there is already an existing adequate outlet SC decision:
from the dominant estate to the public highway, even if that
outlet is inconvenient, the need to open another easement Affirmed the grant of ROW.
will be considered unjustified.
CA was wrong in arbitrarily awarding indemnity for the use
of the road lot.

CALIMOSO V ROULLO With respect to the indemnity awarded, the Court said in the
case of a legal easement, Article 649 of the Civil Code
Topic: At the Point Least Prejudicial prescribes the parameters by which the proper indemnity
In Roullo’s Complaint for the grant of an Easement of Right may be fixed.
of Way, he alleged that his lot is isolated by several “the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land
surrounding estates, including the land owned by Calimoso, occupied and the amount of the damage caused to
He needs a right of way in order to have access to a public the servient estate.”
road; and that the shortest and most convenient access to the To award the indemnity using factors different from that
nearest public road passes through the Calimoso property. given by the law is a complete disregard of these clear
Calimoso pointed out that Roullo has other ROW statutory provisions and is evidently arbitrary.
alternatives and easement would cause substantial damage to Since the metes and bounds of the property covered by the
the two houses already standing on their property. easement were not yet defined, Court remanded the case to
CA adopted the first option, because it offered the shortest the trial court for the determination of the same and of the
distance to the Road and the ROW would only affect the corresponding indemnity, hinting that the trial court may
"nipa hut" standing on Calimoso’s property. take into consideration the fact that the affected road lot is
being used by the general public in mitigating the amount of
SC decision: damage that the servient estate is entitled to.

All the requisites for the valid establishment of an easement DE GUZMAN VS FILINVEST
of ROW are not present
Topic: Width of the Easement
3 options were then available to Roullo for the demanded
ROW. De Guzman and the other petitioners is to establish a
permanent passage through the subdivision roads of the
Although this ROW has the shortest distance to a public servient estate.
road, it is not the least prejudicial considering the
destruction pointed out, and that an option to traverse two The ROW constituting the easement in this case consists of
vacant lots without causing any damage, albeit longer, is existing and developed network of roads.
available. The construction of the road by Filinvest, the needs of de
Mere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is Guzman was not taken into consideration precisely because
required by law and that a longer way may be adopted to they were constructed prior to the grant of the right of way.
avoid injury to the servient estate, such as when there are The width of the affected roads constructed by Filinvest is 10
constructions or walls which can be avoided by a roundabout meters.
way.
SC decision:
Article 650 of the Civil Code provides that the easement of
ROW shall be established at the point least prejudicial to Iniquitous to compute the proper indemnity based on the 10-
the servient estate, and, where the distance from the meter width of the existing roads because it is the needs of
dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest. If the dominant estate which determines the width of the
these two criteria do not concur in a single tenement, the passage.
A 3-meter wide right of way can already sufficiently meet Positive Easement
petitioners' need for vehicular access.
- considered positive if made through a party wall,
The width of the easement of right of way shall be that or even if made on one’s own wall, if the window is
which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate, on a balcony or projection extending over the
and may accordingly be changed from time to time adjoining property.
- an apparent and continuous easement is created
2nd issue: De Guzman argues that it is unfair to require them from the time of such opening.
to pay the value of the affected road lots since the same is - the adjoining owner can order the window closed
tantamount to buying the property without them being issued within ten years from the time of the opening of the
titles. window in order for it not to be acquired by
SC said argument is untenable. prescription.

Payment of the value of the land for permanent use of the Negative Easement
easement does not mean an alienation of the land - if the window is made through a wall on the
occupied. dominant estate.
In fact, the value of the property received by the servient - The ten-year period of prescription commences
estate by way of indemnity shall be returned in full to the from the time of the formal prohibition upon the
dominant estate. adjoining owner (Acknowledge before a notary
public).

ENCARNACION V CA

Topic: Width of the Easement

Encarnacion and De Sagun are owners of two adjacent lots.

De Sagun constructed a fence around their property but it

also created about 1 meter wide to provide access to
highway.

Encarnacion started a plant nursery business and he would

use said pathway as passage to the highway for his family
and for his customers. Then he buy a jeep in transporting his
plants.

However his jeep could not pass through, thus he requested

De Sagun to sell to him 1 ½ meters of his lot.

SC decision:

Encarnacion is entitled to an additional easement of ROW,

after payment of proper indemnity

With the inherent disadvantages of the river bed which make

passage difficult, if not impossible, it is as if there were no
outlet at all.

Art 651 provides that width of the easement of right of

way shall be that which is sufficient for the needs of the
dominant estate, and may accordingly be changed from
time to time.

But the business grew and with it the need for the use of
modern means of conveyance or transport.

Who may demand for compulsory right of way?

A usufructuary is entitled to demand a right of way but a

mere lessee does not enjoy the same right

Extinguishment of right of way

But the opening of an adequate outlet to a highway can

extinguish only legal or compulsory easements, not
voluntary easements.

A voluntary easement of right of way can be extinguished

only by mutual agreement or by renunciation of the owner of
the dominant estate.

Prescriptive period for acquisition of easement of light

and view