Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LEGASPI TOWERS
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul and set aside
300, Inc.
the Decision[1] dated February 16, 2001, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CV No. 48984, affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
However, for Caruffs failure to pay its loan with PNB, the latter
foreclosed the mortgage and acquired some of the properties of Caruff at the
controlled
corporations,
which
have
been
found
unnecessary
or
inappropriate for the government sector to maintain. It also provided for the
Sometime in December 1975, Caruff obtained a loan from the Philippine
mortgage.
mortgaged parcels of land. Along with the other appurtenances of the building
constructed by Caruff, it built a powerhouse (generating set) and two sump
pumps in the adjacent lot covered by TCT No. 127649 (now TCT No. 200760).
Meanwhile, Caruff filed a case against PNB before the RTC of Manila,
Branch 2, whereby Caruff sought the nullification of PNBs foreclosure of its
properties.[6] The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 85-29512.
powerhouse and the sump pumps in its favor, and that the Register of Deeds of
A Compromise Agreement[7] dated August 31, 1988 was later entered
Manila annotate the easement at the back of said certificate of title. [9]
into by Caruff, PNB, and the National Government thru APT. The parties agreed,
In its Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-claim, [10] APT alleged that
among other things, that Caruff would transfer and convey in favor of the
respondent had no cause of action against it, because it was but a mere
National Government, thru the APT, the lot covered by TCT No. 127649 (now TCT
No. 200760), where it built the generating set and sump pumps.
Compromise Agreement in Civil Case No. 85-2952, free from any liens and/or
encumbrances. It was not a privy to any transaction or agreement entered into
by and between Caruff, respondent, and the bank. It further alleged that the
owners without its consent was an encroachment upon its rights as absolute
SO ORDERED.[8]
Thus, by virtue of the Decision, the subject property was among those
properties that were conveyed by Caruff to PNB and the National Government
thru APT.
On July 5, 1989, respondent filed a case for Declaration of the existence
of an easement before the RTC of Manila, docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 8949563. Respondent alleged that the act of Caruff of constructing the powerhouse
and sump pumps on its property constituted a voluntary easement in favor of
the respondent. It prayed, among other things, that judgment be rendered
declaring the existence of an easement over the portion of the property covered
by TCT No. 127649 (now TCT No. 200760) that was being occupied by the
equipments and records held by it and its obligations and liabilities that were
Petitioner maintains that, as the generator set and sump pumps are
improvements of the condominium, the same should have been removed after
On February 16, 2001, finding no reversible error on the part of the RTC,
Caruff undertook to deliver the subject property free from any liens and
the CA rendered a Decision [12] affirming the decision appealed from. PMO filed a
encumbrances by virtue of the Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 85-29512
Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied in the Resolution [13] dated May 3,
2001.
II
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COURT A QUO IN DECLARING
THE EXISTENCE OF AN EASEMENT OVER THE PORTION OF LAND
COVERED BY TCT NO. [200760] OCCUPIED BY THE GENERATOR
SET AND SUMP PUMPS NOS. 1 AND 2, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE
688 OF THE CIVIL CODE.
unequivocal intention to establish the placing of the generator set and sump
III
Petitioner argues that the presence of the generator set and sump
pumps does not constitute an easement. They are mere improvements and/or
attained the character of immovability. They were placed on the subject property
Petitioner insists that, for having unjustly enriched itself at the expense
issue of the declaration of the easement over the subject property, considering
of the National Government and for encroaching on the latters rights as the
that petitioner is not prevented from privatizing the same despite the presence
absolute
owner,
respondent
should
rightfully
compensate
the
National
Government for the use of the subject property which dates back to August 28,
For its part, respondent argues that it was the intention of Caruff to have
property, corporeal and immovable, by virtue of which the owner of the same
a voluntary easement in the subject property and for it to remain as such even
after the property was subsequently assigned to APT. It was Caruff who
property for the benefit of another thing or person. [15] The statutory basis of this
constructed the generating set and sump pumps on its adjacent property for the
use and benefit of the condominium adjoining it. Also, the manner in which the
sump pumps were installed is permanent in nature, since their removal and
transfer to another location would render the same worthless and would cut off
the supply of electricity and water to the condominium and its owners.
with Caruff regarding the compromise agreement and at the time the subject
In the present case, neither type of easement was constituted over the
property was transferred to petitioner. Also, petitioner cannot claim the payment
subject property.
of rent, considering that there was no written demand for respondent to pay rent
In its allegations, respondent claims that Caruff constituted a voluntary
or indemnity.
easement when it constructed the generating set and sump pumps over the
Respondent submits that the mandate of petitioner to privatize or
disputed portion of the subject property for its benefit. However, it should be
dispose of the non-performing assets transferred to it does not conflict with the
noted that when the appurtenances were constructed on the subject property,
the lands where the condominium was being erected and the subject property
where the generating set and sump pumps were constructed belonged to
Caruff. Therefore, Article 613 of the Civil Code does not apply, since no true
easement was constituted or existed, because both properties were owned by
Caruff.
From the foregoing, it can be inferred that when the owner of two
properties alienates one of them and an apparent sign of easement exists
in favor of the National Government thru the APT free from any and all liens and
encumbrances.
xxxx
just as they appear on the face of the contract. [19] Considering that Caruff never
intended to transfer the subject property to PMO, burdened by the generating
set and sump pumps, respondent should remove them from the subject
property.
As regards PMOs claim for rent, respondent has been enjoying the use of
meter of the entire property at P56.25, orP1.81 per square meter per
the subject property for free from the time the rights over the property were
day. Hence, respondent should pay the National Government reasonable rent in
the amount of P56.25 per square meter per month, to be reckoned from August
28, 1989up to the time when the generating set and sump pumps are
completely removed therefrom.
Court in Spec. Proc. No. 89-49563 dated January 12, 1995, and the Decision and
comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter, without just or
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 48984 dated February 16,
legal
2001 and May 3, 2001, respectively, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
ground,
shall
return
the
same
to
him.
The
principle
of
unjust
enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code requires two conditions: (1) that a
person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit
and sump pumps 1 and 2 from the property covered by TCT No. 200760 and
to PAY reasonable
rent
at
the
rate
ofP56.25
per
square
meter/per
month from August 28, 1989 until the same are completely removed.
property and as to the fact that the National Government has been deprived of
SO ORDERED.
the use thereof for almost two decades. Thus, it is but just and proper that
respondent should pay reasonable rent for the portion of the subject property
occupied by the generating set and sump pumps, from the time respondent
deprived the lawful owner of the use thereof up to the present. To rule otherwise
would be unjust enrichment on the part of respondent at the expense of the
Government.
vs.
LUCMAN G. IBRAHIM, OMAR, G. MARUHOM, ELIAS G. MARUHOM,
BUCAY G. MARUHOM, FAROUK G. MARUHOM, HIDJARA G. MARUHOM,
because they failed to show proof that they were the owners of the property,
and (3) the tunnels are a government project for the benefit of all and all private
lands are subject to such easement as may be necessary for the same.
Facts:
Respondent Lucman G. Ibrahim, in his personal capacity and in behalf of his coheirs instituted an action against petitioner National Power Corporation
(NAPOCOR) for recovery of possession of land and damages before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Sur.
In their complaint, Ibrahim and his co-heirs claimed that they were owners of
several parcels of land. Sometime in 1978, NAPOCOR, through alleged stealth
and without respondents knowledge and prior consent, took possession of the
sub-terrain area of their lands and constructed therein underground tunnels. The
existence of the tunnels was only discovered sometime in July 1992 by
respondents and then later confirmed on November 13, 1992 by NAPOCOR itself
through a memorandum issued by the latters Acting Assistant Project Manager.
The tunnels were apparently being used by NAPOCOR in siphoning the water of
Lake Lanao and in the operation of NAPOCOR.
Ibrahim, joined by his co-heirs, filed an Urgent Motion for Execution of Judgment
Pending Appeal. On the other hand, NAPOCOR filed a Notice of Appeal.
Thereafter, NAPOCOR filed a vigorous opposition to the motion for execution of
judgment pending appeal with a motion for reconsideration of the Decision.
The RTC issued an Order granting execution pending appeal and denying
NAPOCORs motion for reconsideration.
NAPOCOR filed its Notice of Appeal by registered mail which was denied by the
RTC on the ground of having been filed out of time. Meanwhile, the Decision of
the RTC was executed pending appeal and funds of NAPOCOR were garnished by
respondents Ibrahim and his co-heirs.
The CA set aside the modified judgment and reinstated the original decision
amending it further by deleting the award of moral damages and reducing the
amount of rentals and attorneys fees,
Issue:
Whether respondents are entitled to just compensation hinges upon who owns
the sub-terrain area occupied by petitioner.
Ruling:
Petitioner maintains that the sub-terrain portion where the underground tunnels
were constructed does not belong to respondents because, even conceding the
fact that respondents owned the property, their right to the subsoil of the same
does not extend beyond what is necessary to enable them to obtain all the
utility and convenience that such property can normally give. In any case,
petitioner asserts that respondents were still able to use the subject property
even with the existence of the tunnels, citing as an example the fact that one of
the respondents, Omar G. Maruhom, had established his residence on a part of
the property. Petitioner concludes that the underground tunnels 115 meters
below respondents property could not have caused damage or prejudice to
respondents and their claim to this effect was, therefore, purely conjectural and
speculative.
ART. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of
everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works or make any
plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to
servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. He cannot complain of
the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation.
Thus, the ownership of land extends to the surface as well as to the subsoil
under it. In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, this principle was
applied to show that rights over lands are indivisible and, consequently, require
a definitive and categorical classification, thus:
rights. This is rather strange doctrine, for it is a well-known principle that the
owner of a piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to everything
underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable height. Under the
aforesaid ruling, the land is classified as mineral underneath and agricultural on
the surface, subject to separate claims of title. This is also difficult to
understand, especially in its practical application.
Under the theory of the respondent court, the surface owner will be planting on
the land while the mining locator will be boring tunnels underneath. The farmer
cannot dig a well because he may interfere with the mining operations below
and the miner cannot blast a tunnel lest he destroy the crops above.
The Court feels that the rights over the land are indivisible and that the land
itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The classification must be
categorical; the land must be either completely mineral or completely
agricultural.
In this regard, the trial court found that respondents could have dug upon their
property motorized deep wells but were prevented from doing so by the
authorities precisely because of the construction and existence of the tunnels
underneath the surface of their property. Respondents, therefore, still had a
legal interest in the sub-terrain portion insofar as they could have excavated the
same for the construction of the deep well. The fact that they could not was
appreciated by the RTC as proof that the tunnels interfered with respondents
enjoyment of their property and deprived them of its full use and enjoyment.
5. Para los fines del uso de la calle, el demandado permitira a los demandantes,
frente de la casa de estos, abrir una puerta de 4 metros de ancho en el corral
construido por el demandado que separa la calle privada y el terreno de los
demandantes, a su (demandantes) costa; sus hojas tendran por dentro, que los
demandantes tendran cerradas para evitar que los nios, hijos de los inquilinos
del demandado tengan acceso a los jeeps de los demandantes, cuyo garaje
tendran dentro de su (demandantes) terreno.
El Juzgado ordena a las partes litigantes complan estrictamente con lo
estipulado; de los contrario, los mismos estaran sujetos a las ordenes de este
Juzgado.
As a result of the above agreement and Order of May 24, 1954, the defendant
abandoned the prosecution of his appeal. At the same time, both parties
complied with its terms until the plaintiffs, unable to continue with their repair
shop, transferred to another place in December 1959 whereupon the defendant
reconstructed his fence and its footing, closing thereby the opening previously
made by the plaintiffs.
In the course of time, the plaintiffs' lot was foreclosed by the Development Bank
of the Philippines (DBP) which, later still, conveyed it under a conditional sale to
Mrs. Luz Arcilla. On her acquisition of the said lot, Mrs. Arcilla demanded of the
defendant the re-opening of the fence in question as it was her plan to construct
her house in the said lot. When the defendant refused, the Development Bank
filed with the lower court a petition to hold the said defendant in contempt. To
this petition, Mrs. Luz Arcilla later intervened and was so allowed by the lower
court. The Development Bank of the Philippines and Mrs. Luz Arcilla contended
that the refusal of the defendant to cause or allow the making of an opening in
his fence was a defiance of the said court's decision of March 11, 1954 and was,
therefore, contemptuous. After due hearing, the lower court sustained the
petitioners and found the defendant guilty of contempt with orders "to pay a fine
of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00) and to open the vereda or alley leading to the
lot owned by the Development Bank of the Philippines and conveyed to Mrs. Luz
S. Arcilla under a conditional deed of sale, otherwise he should be imprisoned
until he does so." Thus, the instant appeal.
The respondent-appellant maintains that the lower court erred in finding him
guilty of contempt because:
1. The decision of March 11, 1954 was novated by the order of May 24, 1954.
Consequently, he could not have violated the former decree since with its
novation it ceased to have any legal effect.
2. Even assuming that the said decision was not novated by the subsequent
order of May 24, 1954, still he could not be deemed to have violated the said
decision because the same never became final and executory. The respondentappellant argued that since the decision of March 11, 1954 ordered the opening
of a right of way in his property without providing for this corresponding
compensation to him, contrary to Article 649 of the Civil Code,1 there was in the
said decision "a void which ought to be filled or to be done in order to
completely dispose of the case. It was not clear, specific and definitive," and
consequently, a judgment that could not have acquired finality.
3. The right to file contempt proceedings against him, with respect to the
decrees contained in the decision of March 11, 1954, has prescribed. The
respondent-appellant conceded that there is no prescriptive period for the
institution of contempt proceedings. However, he contended that inasmuch as
contempt under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court is punishable by arresto mayor, it
should prescribe in five years just as crimes for which the said penalty is
imposed prescribe, under the Penal Code, in five years.
Without passing on the merits or demerits of the foregoing arguments, this Court
believes that the order finding the respondent-appellant guilty of contempt
should be reversed. It is clear that the order of May 24, 1954 superseded and
was fully intended by the lower court to modify or stand in substitution of the
decision of March 11, 1954. More than the expression of the parties amicable
agreement on the dispute, the said order was the lower court's resolution of the
respondent-appellant's motion for reconsideration of the decision of March 11,
1954. In the determination, therefore, of the said appellant's obligation relative
to the easement in question, the latter and not the decision of March 11, 1954 is
the proper point in reference.
Under the aforesaid order of May 24, 1954, the easement awarded or secured by
the lower court to the plaintiffs was strictly a personal one. The right of way
granted was expressly limited to the latter and their "family, friends, drivers,
servants and jeeps." In the very language of the agreement the following
appears:
El demandado Antonio Legaspi, permitira el uso y paso en la calle privada
construida por el en su terreno a lo largo del terreno de los demandantes, a
estos, su familia, sus amigos, chofers, servidumbre y de sus jeeps.
The servitude established was clearly for the benefit alone of the plaintiffs and
the persons above enumerated and it is clear that the lower court, as well as the
parties addressed by the said order, did not intend the same to pass on to the
plaintiffs'
successors-in-interest. In other words, the right acquired by the original plaintiffs
was a personal servitude under Article 614 of the Civil Code, and not a predial
servitude that inures to the benefit of whoever owns the dominant estate.
In resisting the extension of the aforementioned easement to the latter, the
plaintiffs' successors-in-interest, the respondent-appellant, therefore, was not
defying the decision of March 11, 1954 which was then no longer subsisting, nor
the order of May 24, 1954 since the said successors-in-interest had no right
thereunder.
Another evidence that the servitude in question was personal to the plaintiffs is
the fact that the same was granted to the latter without any compensation to
the respondent-appellant.
They also claimed that the amicable settlement executed between Reta and
Ricardo Roble was void ab initio for being violative of Presidential Decree No.
1517.
Wherefore, the order of the lower court dated March 11, 1960 finding the
respondent-appellant guilty of contempt is hereby reversed, without
pronouncement as to costs.
On the other hand, Reta claimed that the land is beyond the ambit of
Presidential Decree No. 1517 since it has not been proclaimed as an Urban Land
Reform Zone; that the applicable law is Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 for failure of the
plaintiffs to pay the rentals for the use of the land; and that the amicable
settlement between him and Ricardo Roble was translated to the latter and fully
explained in his own dialect.
On March 8, 1994, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint
and ordering the plaintiffs to pay Reta certain sums representing rentals that
had remained unpaid.[5]
On April 6, 1994, plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals.[6]
DECISION
On
December
9,
1998,
the
Court
of
Appeals
decision[7] affirming in toto the decision of the trial court.
PARDO, J. :
The Case
The Issue
In this petition for review,[1] petitioners seek to review the decision[2] of the
Court of Appeals affirming the decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court, Davao City,
Branch 14, dismissing petitioners complaint for the exercise of the right of first
refusal under Presidential Decree No. 1517, injunction with preliminary
injunction, attorneys fees and nullity of amicable settlement.
The issue is whether petitioners have the right of first refusal under Presidential
Decree No. 1517.
The Facts
Edilberto Alcantara, Florencio Villarmia, Policarpio Obregon, Ricardo Roble,
Escolastica Ondong, Esteban Rallos, Henry Sesbino, Sergio Sesbino, Manuel
Centeno, Renato Cruz, Marcelo Ceneza, Buenaventura Ondong and Benjamin
Halasan, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Davao City, Branch 14, a
complaint[4] against Cornelio B. Reta, Jr. for the exercise of the right of right of
first refusal under Presidential Decree No. 1517, injunction with preliminary
injunction, attorneys fees and nullity of amicable settlement.
The plaintiffs claimed that they were tenants or lessees of the land located in
Barangay Sasa, Davao City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-72594,
owned by Reta; that the land has been converted by Reta into a commercial
center; and that Reta is threatening to eject them from the land. They assert
that they have the right of first refusal to purchase the land in accordance with
Section 3(g) of Presidential Decree No. 1517 since they are legitimate tenants or
lessees thereof.
promulgated
within the said category cannot be considered legitimate tenants and, therefore,
not entitled to the right of first refusal to purchase the property should the owner
of the land decide to sell the same at a reasonable price within a reasonable
time.[12]
The Fallo
Respondent Reta denies that he has lease agreements with petitioners Edilberto
Alcantara and Ricardo Roble.[13] Edilberto Alcantara, on the other hand, failed
to present proof of a lease agreement other than his testimony in court that he
bought the house that he is occupying from his father-in-law.[14]
No costs.
Respondent Reta allowed petitioner Ricardo Roble to use sixty-two (62) coconut
trees for P186 from where he gathered tuba. This arrangement would show that
it is a usufruct and not a lease. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of
another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title
constituting it or the law otherwise provides.[15]
Petitioner Roble was allowed to construct his house on the land because it would
facilitate his gathering of tuba. This would be in the nature of a personal
easement under Article 614 of the Civil Code.[16]
Whether the amicable settlement[17] is valid or not, the conclusion would still
be the same since the agreement was one of usufruct and not of lease. Thus,
petitioner Roble is not a legitimate tenant as defined by Presidential Decree No.
1517.
As to the other petitioners, respondent Reta admitted that he had verbal
agreements with them. This notwithstanding, they are still not the legitimate
tenants contemplated by Presidential Decree No. 1517, who can exercise the
right of first refusal.
A contract has been defined as a meeting of the minds between two persons
whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to
render some service.[18]
Clearly, from the moment respondent Reta demanded that the petitioners
vacate the premises, the verbal lease agreements, which were on a monthly
basis since rentals were paid monthly,[19] ceased to exist as there was
termination of the lease.
Indeed, none of the petitioners is qualified to exercise the right of first refusal
under P. D. No. 1517.
Another factor which militates against petitioners claim is the fact that there is
no intention on the part of respondent Reta to sell the property. Hence, even if
the petitioners had the right of first refusal, the situation which would allow the
exercise of that right, that is, the sale or intended sale of the land, has not
happened. P. D. No. 1517 applies where the owner of the property intends to sell
it to a third party.[20]
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition. The Court AFFIRMS the decision of
the Court of Appeals[21] and the resolution denying reconsideration thereof.
SO ORDERED.
The Court ruled that the easement of light which is the object of this litigation is
of a negative character, and therefore pertains to the class which can not be
acquired by prescription as provided by article 538 of the Civil Code, except by
counting the time of possession from the date on which the owner of the
dominant estate has, in a formal manner, forbidden the owner of the servient
estate to do an act which would be lawful were it not for the easement.
In consequence thereof, the plaintiff, not having executed any formal act of
opposition to the right of the owner of the house No. 63, has not acquired, nor
could he acquire by prescription, such easement of light, no matter how long a
time have elapsed since the windows were opened in the wall of the said house
No. 65, because the period which the law demands for such prescriptive
acquisition could not have commenced to run, the act with which it must
necessarily commence not having been performed.
It is not true that article 533 of the Civil Code says that the easement of light is
positive, because it does nothing more than give in general terms the definition
of positive easements and negative easements, without attempting to specify
whether the easement of lights pertains to the first or to the second class.
It would appear, judging from his allegations as a whole, that the appellant
confuses positive easements with continuous easements. If all continuous
easements were positive and all discontinuous easements were negative, then
the express division of easements into positive and negative made by the Code,
after establishing the division of the same as continuous or discontinuous, would
be entirely unnecessary, as they would be entirely merged or included in the
latter classification. It is sufficient to read the text of the Code to understand
beyond the possibility of a doubt that a negative easement may be continuous,
and that a positive easement may be discontinuous, according to the special
nature of each one.
Servitudes are merely accessories to the tenements of which they form part. The
fact, however, that the alley in question is inseparable from the main lot is
immaterial to defeat petitioners claim. Even if private respondent owns the
property, it did not acquire the right to close that alley or put up obstructions to
prevent the public from using such alley. Respondents contention regarding the
merger does not apply in the case here since the servitude spoken of here is a
personal servitude. In a personal servitude, there is no owner of a dominant
servient and the easement pertains to persons without a dominant estate or in
this case, the general public.
covered by Torrens titles. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals are of the
view and so declared that respondents Javier et al., did acquire such easement
and gave judgment accordingly. Hence, petitioner has come to us seeking
review, alleging that both courts are in error.
The windows in question are admittedly in respondents' own building erected on
their own lot. The easement, if there is any, is therefore a negative one. 1 The
alleged prohibition having been avowedly made in 1913 or 1914, before the
present Civil Code took effect, the applicable legal provision is Article 538 of the
Spanish Civil Code which provides:
Art. 538. In order to acquire by prescription the easements referred to in
the next preceding article, the time of the possession shall be computed,
... in negative easements, from the day on which the owner of the
dominant estate has, by a formal act, forbidden the owner of the
servient estate to perform any act which would be lawful without the
easement. (Emphasis supplied.)
As may be seen, the only question hinges on the interpretation of the phrase "a
formal act". The lower court and the Court of Appeals considered any prohibition
made by the owner of the dominant estate, be it oral or written, sufficient
compliance with the law. The Court of Appeals declared:
In the light of the foregoing decisions, (Cortes vs. Yu Tibo, 2 Phil., 26 and
the decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain therein cited), we agree
with the trial court that the "formal act" of prohibition contemplated by
Art. 538 of the old Civil Code may be either a written or verbal act. The
decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain above-quoted do not at all
mention written but merely some act of prohibition. . . . .
We are inclined to take the contrary view. The law is explicit. It requires
not any form of prohibition, but exacts, in a parenthetical expression, for
emphasis, the doing not only of a specific, particular act, but a formal act. The
following definitions are pertinent:
Formalor pertaining to form, characterized by one due form or order,
done in due form with a solemnity regular; relating to matters of form.
(C. J. S. vol. 37, p. 115.)
BARRERA, J.:
ActIn civil law, a writing which states in legal form that a thing has
been done, said or agreed. (1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, p. 150, citing
Marlin Report.)
From these definitions, it would appear that the phrase "formal act" would
require not merely any writing, but one executed in due form and/or with
solemnity. That this is the intendment of the law although not expressed in exact
language is the reason for the clarification2 made in Article 621 of the new Civil
The Decision in this case, promulgated on June 30, 1960, provided, among
others, for the lifting of the preliminary injunction issued by the lower court
directed against petitioner's construction of a building allegedly being made in
violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 3, series of 1909 of the municipality of
Laoag, and in disregard of respondents' right to light and view.
In their motion for reconsideration timely presented, respondents claim that the
findings of the lower court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the building
under construction violated the aforementioned ordinance (from which no
appeal was interposed) having become final, justify the issuance of and making
permanent the injunction already issued.
There is no question that respondents' house, as well as that of petitioner, are
within their respective properties; that respondents' wall stands only 50
centimeters from the boundary of the 2 lots, whereas, the wall of the petitioner's
building was constructed 1 meter from the boundary or 1 meter and 50
centimeters from the wall of the house of respondents. As a result, the lower
court found that the eaves of the two houses overlap each other by 24
centimeters. This, the Court of Appeals declared to be violative of Ordinance No.
3, series of 1903, amending Sections 1, 5, 6, and 13 of the Municipal Ordinance
of June 3, 1903, which requires a distance of 2 meters, measured from eaves to
eaves of adjoining buildings of strong materials.
It must be noted, however, that the Ordinance in question was adopted since
1909 and was, therefore, already in force at the time the house of respondents
was reconstructed in 1946 after the building originally erected thereon was
burned in 1942. If respondents constructed their house at least one meter from
the boundary line, as petitioner has constructed hers, there would be no
overlapping of the eaves and there would not be any violation of the ordinance.
As things now stand, in view of such construction by the respondents, the
overlapping of the eaves and the consequential violation of the ordinance can
not entirely be attributed to petitioner, as to require her alone to make the
adjustments necessary for the observance of the 2-meter eaves-to-eaves
distance from her neighbors. If any compliance with the ordinance would be
made not only by petitioner, but also by the respondents. There is, therefore, no
reason for the continuation of the injunction.
In view of the foregoing, and as the other grounds respondents' motion for
reconsideration had been already duly considered in the Decision, the said
motion is hereby denied, for lack of merit. So ordered.
Juan Gargantos appeals by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals
reversing the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Romblon.
The record discloses that the late Francisco Sanz was the former owner of a
parcel of land containing 888 square meters, with the buildings and
improvements thereon, situated in the poblacion of Romblon. He subdivided the
lot into three and then sold each portion to different persons. One portion was
purchased by Guillermo Tengtio who subsequently sold it to Vicente Uy Veza.
Another portion, with the house of strong materials thereon, was sold in 1927 to
Tan Yanon, respondent herein. This house has on its northeastern side, doors and
windows over-looking the third portion, which, together with the camarin and
small building thereon, after passing through several hands, was finally acquired
by Juan Gargantos, petitioner herein.
On April 23, 1955, Gargantos applied to the Municipal Mayor for a permit to
demolish the roofing of the oldcamarin. The permit having been granted,
Gargantos tore down the roof of the camarin. On May 11, 1955, Gargantos asked
the Municipal Council of Romblon for another permit, this time in order to
construct a combined residential house and warehouse on his lot. Tan Yanon
opposed approval of this application.
Because both the provincial fiscal and district engineer of Romblon
recommended granting of the building permit to Gargantos, Tan Yanon filed
against Gargantos an action to restrain him from constructing a building that
would prevent plaintiff from receiving light and enjoying the view trough the
window of his house, unless such building is erected at a distance of not less
than three meters from the boundary line between the lots of plaintiff and
defendant, and to enjoin the members of Municipal Council of Romblon from
issuing the corresponding building permit to defendant. The case as against the
members of the Municipal Council was subsequently dismissed with concurrence
of plaintiff's council. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Romblon rendered
judgment dismissing the complaint and ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the
sum of P12,500.00 by way of compensatory, exemplary, moral and moderate
damages.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Romblon and enjoined defendant from constructing his building
unless "he erects the same at a distance of not less than three meters from the
boundary line of his property, in conformity with Article 673 of the New Civil
Code."
So Juan Gargantos filed this petition for review of the appellate Court's decision.
The focal issue herein is whether the property of respondent Tan Yanon has an
easement of light and view against the property of petitioner Gargantos.
inscribed on the title of plaintiff-appellee's lots as well as to pay the actual moral
and consequential damages.
On September 7, 1959, the trial court pursuant to a pre-trial agreement issued
an order appointing the Provincial Land Officer of the Bureau of Lands, Ilocos
Norte, or his duly authorized representative to relocate the monuments and
determine the boundary line between the lots of the parties involved.
On May 5, 1962 plaintiff-appellee filed a motion for summary judgment in
accordance with the prayer of his complaint except the portion relative to
damages where he reserved his right to present his evidence. He supported his
motion for summary judgment with an affidavit of merits to which he has
attached the Original Certificate of Title No. R-6 the Decree of Registration for
the issuance of said certificate of title, the Order dated September 7, 1959 and
the report of the Commissioner. In asking for summary judgment plaintiffappellee contended that from the respective pleadings of the parties and the
Commissioner's Report relative to the relocation and boundaries of his lands and
the adjacent lands of defendants-appellants which are both covered by Torrens
Certificate of Title, it is evident that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact, except as to the amount of damages.
On June 4, 1962 defendants-appellants opposed the motion for summary
judgment on the ground that their answer to the plaintiff-appellee's complaint
has raised genuine and material issues of facts. In their supporting affidavit,
defendants-appellants alleged that the plaintiff-appellee was the private
surveyor who surveyed their lot in 1925 and that in the course of his survey he
had acted in bad faith when he excluded the portion of their land, which was the
subject matter of their opposition to the registration of plaintiff-appellee's lots;
that they constructed their house in 1950 without any protest from the plaintiffappellee and was almost complete when the Decree of Registration was issued
by the court; that the plaintiff-appellee knew fully well that the defendantsappellants were merely reconstructing a house which had been existing prior to
the bombing of Bangued in 1945; and that the brick wall standing along the
house is exclusively owned by them.
On July 30, 1962, the lower court rendered the now questioned Summary
Judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATION, summary
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against
the defendants:
(a) Ordering the defendants to reconstruct the roof and eaves of
their house on the southern side now existing on their lot such
that the falling water shall not fall on curve into the lots of the
plaintiff beyond one meter from the boundary line and by 8-
meters in length and to remove the said protruding eaves and
roof;
(b) Ordering the herein defendants to reconstruct the wall of
their house on the southern side either by placing in two meters
north of the boundary line if they desired their windows on the
first and second floors to continue to exist, or to permanently
close the three windows on the second floor and such other
openings or apertures facing the lot of the plaintiff;
(c) Ordering the defendants to comply with what is ordered
above in Pars. (a) and (b) within sixty (60) days from the finality
of this judgment. Upon their failure to do so the Provincial Sheriff
of Abra is hereby authorized to implement this judgment and
execute the acts mentioned in Pars. (a) and (b) hereof, at the
expense of the defendants:
(d) Enjoining perpetually the herein defendants from prohibiting
the plaintiff from making such legal and lawful constructions on
his lots up to the boundary between plaintiff's lot and
defendants' lot, provided always that such construction in
whatever form, as a firewall, fence, etc., shall not violate the
casement of drainage in favor of the defendants, and to conform
with the provisions of Art. 675 of the New Civil Code; and
(e) Ordering the defendants from further encroaching into
plaintiff's lots and molesting the said plaintiff in the lawful
exercise of dominion over his own property.
Plaintiff-appellee reserved his right to adduce evidence with respect to damages.
On September 3, 1962 defendants-appellants moved for reconsideration of the
foregoing decision on the ground that there is a genuine and material issue of
fact and that said decision is unsupported by law and evidence. Whereupon the
court a quo, deferring in the meantime any action on the motion, issued an
order appointing Atty. Gelacio Bolante, Clerk of Court, to act as commissioner to
make an ocular inspection on the premises of the lot in question and to measure
the eaves of the house of the defendants-appellants to find out whether it
conforms with the annotation contained in the Torrens certificate of Title of the
plaintiff-appellee.
On December 4, 1962 the Clerk of Court submitted his report. After receiving a
copy of said report defendants-appellants manifested to the court that they
agree with the findings of facts therein and prayed that judgment be rendered in
accordance therewith and that their ownership of the brick wall mentioned in
said report be confirmed.
On July 23, 1963 the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration of its
summary judgment.
Hence, this appeal.
Defendants-appellants contended that the lower court erred in rendering a
summary judgment because (1) there is actually a genuine issue of material
facts raised in the pleadings; (2) that it made a finding of fact not supported by
any evidence; and (3) that it rendered summary judgment without any legal
basis. They claimed that after denying the allegations of plaintiff-appellee's
complaint that they have violated the easement of drainage there was actually a
genuine issue of material fact presented. The allegation referred to is that
contained in paragraph 6 which states that the roof of defendants' house
protrudes by .2 meter wider and 2- meters longer than that allowed by the
Decree of Registration. This denial in paragraph 4 of the Answer of the
defendants-appellants reads as follows:
That the defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 6 of the
complaint, and allege that the house standing on the dominant
estate pertaining to Felisa Paredes, was constructed long before
the issuance of the Decree of Registration alluded to in the
complaint, the herein defendants not having violated the terms
of the Decree of Registration to in paragraph 4 of the complaint.
Again in their opposition to the motion for summary judgment, defendantsappellants repeated the same denial and averments by alleging therein:
Defendants specifically denied these allegations of the plaintiff
and alleged that (a) the house of the defendants was
constructed sometime in the latter months of 1950, before the
issuance of the Decree of Registration adverted to by the
plaintiff, and therefore could not have violated that said Decree,
and (b) that the windows complained of by the plaintiff are
reconstructed windows of the reconstructed house of the
dominant estate which had been in existence since the Spanish
Regime, with the knowledge, acquiescence and toleration of the
plaintiff and his predecessors in interests for more than sixty
(60) years.
Even the supporting affidavit of defendants-appellants alleged that the brick wall
standing along their house and adjacent to the land of the plaintiff-appellee is
owned by them. A close look at the foregoing denials however, will show that the
allegations defendants-appellants were trying to challenge relate to the validity
of the easement of drainage as annotated in the Certificate of Title of plaintiffappellee and not to the allegation that the roof of defendants-appellants
protrudes by .2 meter wider and 2- meters longer than that allowed by the
Decree of Registration. This must be the reason why in his summary judgment,
the trial judge noted the first issue as: "(1) that the house now standing on the
lot of the defendants was constructed before the issuance of the Decree of
Registration and, therefore, such construction did not violate said Decree of
Registration particularly the easement annotated on the Original Certificate of
Title No. R-6 ...."
It is only in their Motion for Reconsideration that defendants-appellants made
the clarification that the issue is not whether their house was constructed before
or subsequent to the Amicable Settlement but whether or not the roofing was .2
meter wider and 2- meters longer than the distance allowed in the Decree of
Registration. So after the clarification, the trial judge ordered that an ocular
inspection of the premises of the lots in question be made and the eaves of the
house of the defendants-appellants be measured whether it conforms with the
annotation contained in the Torrens Certificate of Title of plaintiff-appellee. After
the ocular inspection defendants-appellants readily manifested their conformity
to the findings of fact made by the commissioner appointed by the court. Under
such a situation, it would seem that there was no need for a trial on the merits
to resolve the question as to whether the defendants-appellants' roof was
constructed in violation of the easement of drainage of plaintiff-appellee. All that
remained for the trial court, to do was to evaluate the facts and the arguments
in the pleadings and the reports of the commissioner.
Defendants-appellants faulted the trial court for concluding that they have
violated the conditions of the easement of drainage without taking into
consideration the report of the commissioner appointed by it. After going over
the pleadings of the parties and the reports of the commissioner, we find no
substantial ground to disturb the conclusion of the trial court. Defendantsappellants have made a mistake in applying the distances prescribed in the
Decree of Registration to the roofing of their house. They failed to comprehend
the meaning of the phrase "servidumbre de vertiente de los tejados" constitutes
on the land of plaintiff. Translated, it means the easement of receiving water
falling from the roof which is an encumbrance imposed on the land of the
plaintiff-appellee. Consequently, the distances prescribed in the Decree of
Registration should not correspond to the width and length of the roof of the
defendants-appellants' house but to the distance of the rain water falling inside
the land of the plaintiff-appellee because the encumbrance is not the roof itself
but the rain water falling inside the property of the plaintiff-appellee. The
Amicable Settlement, which was the basis of the Decree of Registration, clearly
states that the servitude on the land is to the extent of the distances setforth
thus:
... the applicant agrees to respect an easement of servitude over
a portion of the lots Nos. 1 and 2 which is EIGHT AND ONE HALF
(8-) meters in length commencing from point 4 of Lot No. 2
and stretching towards Lot No. 1 going Eastward, and the width
is ONE (1) meter, in order that the rain water coming from the
roofing of a house to be constructed by the oppositor over the
ruins of her brick wall now standing along the Northeastern
boundary of Lot 1 shall fall into the land of the applicant.
And the Decree of Registration tersely states that a portion of Lot 1 and Lot 2
consisting of 8- meters long and 1 meter wide is subject to the easement of
receiving water falling from the roof. If these distances were made to correspond
to the measurement of the roof then the encumbrance on plaintiff-appellee's
property would be more than the distances specified in the Certificate of Title.
The report submitted by the Commissioner appointed by the lower court to make
an ocular of the premises involved shows that the eaves of the house of
defendants-appellee and measures 8 meters and 20 centimeters in length; that
during ordinary rain the water falling from the eaves of the defendantsappellants' house fall within one meter from the boundary line of plaintiffappellee's property and during heavy rains more than one meter from said
boundary line. The foregoing findings and observations of the Commissioner
weaken defendants-appellants' disclaimer that they did not violate the
conditions of the easement of drainage of plaintiff-appellee. There is such
violation because the roof of the defendants-appellants protrudes by 98
centimeters over the property of plaintiff-appellee, so that during a heavy
rainfall the propulsion of the water would go as far as one meter over the
property of the latter. Obviously the lower court is correct in finding the
defendants-appellants to have violated the conditions of the easement of
drainage of plaintiff-appellee.
Defendants-appellants also blamed the trial court for ruling that they have not
acquired an easement of light and view of the property of the plaintiff-appellee.
The trial court's ruling that defendants-appellants have not acquired an
easement of light and view on the property of the plaintiff-appellee is premised
on Section 39 of Act 496 in accordance with which the servient estate was
registered. Said Section provides:
Every person receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a
decree of registration ... shall hold the same free of all
encumbrance except those noted on said certificates ...
The same section, however, provides: "But if there are easement or other rights
appurtenant to a parcel of registered land which for any reason have failed to be
registered, such easement or rights shall remain so appurtenant notwithstanding
such failure, and shall be held to pass with the land until cut off or extinguished
by the registration of the servient estate or in any other manner (Sec. 39, Act
No. 496, as amended by Act No. 2011, and Sec, 4, Act No. 3621). In the case
of Cid vs. Javier, 108 Phil. 850, 853, plaintiff's lot (dominant) as well as
defendants' lot (servient) are covered by Original Certificate of Title Nos. 7225
and 7545 respectively. In both of them, there does not appear any annotation
with respect to the easement supposedly acquired by prescription which
counting the twenty, (20) years from 1931 or 1914 would have already ripened
by 1937, date of the decrees of registration. In said case our Supreme Court
held:
Granting that in the instant case an easement of light and view
was acquired by prescription, it was cut off or extinguished by
the of the registration of the servient estate under the Torrens
System without the easement being annotated on the
corresponding certificate of title, pursuant to Sec. 39 of the Land
Registration Act (Act 496).
The lower court correctly applied the foregoing doctrine to the case at bar.
Indeed if defendants-appellants had acquired the said easement of light and
view by prescription through user since time immemorial why did they not
intervene in the registration proceedings for the inclusion of said easement in
the Certificate of Title of plaintiff-appellee as an encumbrance thereon, in the
same manner that the easement of drainage was annotated in the Certificate of
Title of plaintiff-appellee? The easement of drainage was inscribed in the
Certificate of Title of plaintiff-appellee in their favor by virtue of an amicable
settlement resulting from their opposition to the registration of plaintiffappellee's property. In this light, their defense of user "since time immemorial"
becomes flimsy and is merely being used to simulate a factual issue.
Finally, defendants-appellants argued that the summary judgment of the lower
court has no legal basis. Summary judgment is employed as a method of
disposing a case when the pleadings, depositions, admission and affidavits filed
by the parties show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law (Section 3 of Rule
34). In the case at bar the plaintiff-appellee's right to the reliefs sought is
dependent on the existence or non-existence of the easement of drainage and of
light and view of favor of the defendants-appellants as well as on the conditions
attached to such easements. There is no dispute that plaintiff-appellee's
property was registered in 1951 under the Torrens System and that only the
easement of drainage is annotated on his Certificate of Title, subject to
. . . in order to have an access to and from their aforementioned land where their
houses are constructed and to have an outlet to Tandang Sora Ave. which is the
nearest public road and the least burdensome to the servient estate and to third
persons, it would be necessary for them to pass through spouses MAXIMO
GABRIEL and JUSTINA CAPUNOs land and for this purpose, a path or passageway
of not less than two (2) meters wide of said spouses property is necessary for
the use of ROMEO, RODOLFO, NENITA and AURORA ESPINOLA and for all their
needs in entering their property.
xxx
WHEREFORE, in view of the fact that the property of the ESPINOLA had been
bought by them from MAXIMO CAPUNO, father of MAXIMO GABRIEL, spouses
MAXIMO GABRIEL and JUSTINA CAPUNO hereby agree and permit RODOLFO,
ROMEO, NENITA and AURORA ESPINOLA and their families to have a permanent
easement of right of way over the aforementioned property of said spouses
limited to not more than two meters wide, throughout the whole length of the
southeast side of said property and as specifically indicated in the attached plan
which is made an integral part of this Contract as Annex A;
This Agreement shall be binding between the parties and upon their heirs,
successors, assigns, without prejudice in cases of sale of subject property that
will warrant the circumstances.[3]
Unknown to petitioner, even before he bought the land, the Gabriels had
constructed the aforementioned small house that encroached upon the twometer easement. Petitioner was also unaware that private respondents, Julio
Sebastian and Shirley Lorilla, had filed on May 8, 1991, Civil Case No. Q-91-8703,
for easement, damages and with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction
and/or restraining order against the spouses Gabriel. [4] As successors-in-interest,
Sebastian and Lorilla wanted to enforce the contract of easement.
On May 15, 1991, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order. On
August 13, 1991, it issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering
the Gabriels to provide the right of way and to demolish the small house
encroaching on the easement. On August 15, 1991, the Gabriels filed a motion
for reconsideration which was also denied. Thus, they filed a petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
On March 26, 1992, the Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals dismissed
the petition and upheld the RTCs issuances. The decision became final and
executory on July 31, 1992.[5]
On January 5, 1995, Judge Tirso Velasco of the RTC in Quezon City, Branch
88, issued an Alias Writ of Demolition. On June 20, 1995, the sheriff tried to
demolish the small house pursuant to the writ.Petitioner filed a Third Party Claim
with Prayer to Quash Alias Writ of Demolition. He maintains that the writ of
demolition could not apply to his property since he was not a party to the civil
case. His Third Party Claim with prayer to quash the writ of demolition was
denied for lack of merit on August 16, 1995. [6] The motion for reconsideration as
well as the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration dated September 12, 1995
were denied on October 19, 1995. [7]
Petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 39166, asserting that the existence of the
easement of right of way was not annotated in his title and that he was not a
party to Civil Case No. Q-91-8703, hence the contract of easement executed by
the Gabriels in favor of the Espinolas could not be enforced against him. The
Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit and denied the
reconsideration, disposing thus:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby dismissed by this court for lack of
merit.
No costs considering the failure of private respondents to file their comment,
despite notice.[8]
Hence, this instant petition.
Petitioner now avers that the appellate court erred in declaring,
(1) THAT FOLLOWING THE ESSENCE OF INHERENCE AND INTRANSMISSIBILITY OF
AN EASEMENT, A RIGHT OF WAY CAN EXIST EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT EXPRESSLY
STATED OR ANNOTATED ON THE TORRENS TITLE;
(2) THAT PETITIONER, AS PROSPECTIVE BUYER, SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED
ORDINARY PRUDENCE BY TAKING THE INITIATIVE TO DETERMINE THAT AN
EASEMENT HAS BEEN CONSTITUTED ON THE PROPERTY HE INTENDS TO BUY;
AND,
(3) THAT IN AS MUCH AS THE HEREIN PETITIONER IS NOT A PARTY TO CIVIL CASE
NO. Q-91-8703, HE CANNOT BE BOUND BY ANY JUDGMENT OR ORDER
RENDERED THEREIN.[9]
Primarily, the issue is whether the easement on the property binds
petitioner.
Petitioner argues it could not be enforced against him. First, he says that a
right of way cannot exist when it is not expressly stated or annotated on
the Torrens title. According to him, even if an easement is inherent and
inseparable from the estate to which it actively belongs as provided in Art. 617
of the Civil Code,[10] the same is extinguished when the servient estate is
registered and the easement was not annotated in said title conformably with
Section 39 of the Land Registration Law. Second, petitioner points out that the
trial court erred when it faulted him for relying solely on the clean title of the
property he bought, as it is well-settled that a person dealing with registered
land is not required to go beyond what is recorded in the title. He adds that it is
private respondents who should have made sure their right of way was
safeguarded by having the same annotated on the title with the Register of
Deeds. He adds that Section 76 of P.D. No. 1529 [11] also requires that when a
case is commenced involving any right to registered land under the Land
Registration Law (now the Property Registration Decree), any decision on it will
only be effectual between or among the parties thereto, unless a notice of lis
pendens of such action is filed and registered in the registry office where the
land is recorded. There was no such annotation in the title of the disputed land,
according to petitioner. Lastly, since he was not a party to Civil Case No. Q-918703, petitioner argues that he cannot be bound by the writ of demolition and
be forcibly divested of a portion of his land without having his day in court.
Private respondents Sebastian and Lorilla, for their part, adopted the
disquisition of the appellate court as their Comment and asked for the dismissal
of the petition and P100,000.00 in damages. In its decision the appellate court,
citing the decision of the lower court, stressed that unlike other types of
encumbrance of real property, a servitude like a right of way can exist even if
they are not expressly stated or annotated as an encumbrance in a Torrens title
because servitudes are inseparable from the estates to which they actively or
passively belong. Moreover, Villanueva was bound by the contract of easement,
not only as a voluntary easement but as a legal easement. A legal easement
is mandated by law, and continues to exists unless its removal is provided for in
a title of conveyance or the sign of the easement is removed before the
execution of the conveyance conformably with Article 649 [12]in accordance with
Article 617[13] of the Civil Code.
At the outset, we note that the subject easement (right of way) originally
was voluntarily constituted by agreement between the Gabriels and the
Espinolas. But as correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, the easement in
the instant petition is both (1) an easement by grant or a voluntary easement,
and (2) an easement by necessity or a legal easement. A legal easement is one
mandated by law, constituted for public use or for private interest, and becomes
a continuing property right.[14] As a compulsory easement, it is inseparable from
the estate to which it belongs, as provided for in said Article 617 of the Civil
Code.The essential requisites for an easement to be compulsory are: (1) the
upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the condition, status or
relationship of the person; however, the probate of a will or granting of letters of
administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or
intestate;
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter
directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in
relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in
interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or
special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same
title and in the same capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in
interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or
final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was
actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. (Emphasis ours).
Simply stated, a decision in a case is conclusive and binding upon the
parties to said case and those who are their successor in interest by title after
said case has been commenced or filed in court. [18] In this case, private
respondents, Julio Sebastian and Shirley Lorilla, initiated Civil Case No. Q-918703 on May 8, 1991,[19] against the original owners, the spouses Maximo and
Justina Gabriel. Title in the name of petitioner was entered in the Register of
Deeds[20] on March 24, 1995, after he bought the property from the bank which
had acquired it from the Gabriels. Hence, the decision in Civil Case No. Q-918703 binds petitioner. For, although not a party to the suit, he is a successor-ininterest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action in court.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.