Case Digest: Abellana Sr. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 97039 I April 24, 1992

FACTS:

The petitioners who live on a parcel of land abutting the northwestern side of the Nonoc Homes Subdivision, sued to establish an easement of right of way over a subdivision road which, according to the petitioners, used to be a mere footpath which they and their ancestors had been using since time immemorial, and that, hence, they had acquired, through prescription, an easement of right of way therein. The construction of a wall by the respondents around the subdivision deprived the petitioners of the use of the subdivision road which gives the subdivision residents access to the public highway. They asked that the high concrete walls enclosing the subdivision and cutting of their access to the subdivision road be removed and that the road be opened to them.

The private respondents denied that there was a pre-existing footpath in the place before it was developed into a subdivision. They alleged furthermore that the Nonoc Subdivision roads are not the shortest way to a public road for there is a more direct route from the petitioners' land to the public highway.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners have acquired the easement of right of way over the subdivision footpath by prescription.  

DECISION:

The Court denied the petition, finding no merit in the petition for review. The Court held that no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the requisite conditions do not exist for the grant of an easement of right of way in favor of the petitioners' land under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code. Moreover, petitioners' assumption that an easement of right of way is continuous and apparent and may be acquired by prescription under Article 620 of the Civil Code, is erroneous. The use of a footpath or road may be apparent but it is not a continuous easement because its use is at intervals and depends upon the acts of man. It can be exercised only if a man passes or puts his feet over somebody else's land. Hence, a right of way is not acquirable by prescription.