FACTS:
The petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land
located in Ermita, Manila. The same lies in the vicinity of another parcel,
registered in the name of the private respondent corporation. The private
respondent's title came from a prior owner, and in their deed of sale, the
parties thereto reserved as an easement of way: "...a portion thereof
measuring NINE HUNDRED FOURTEEN SQUARE METERS, more or less, had been converted
into a private alley for the benefit of neighbouring estates, this being duly
annotated at the back of the covering transfer Certificate of title per
regulations of the Office of the City Engineer of Manila..."
The petitioner claims that ever since, it had (as
well as other residents of neighbouring estates) made use of the above private
alley and maintained and contributed to its upkeep, until sometime in 1983,
when, and over its protests, the private respondent constructed steel gates
that precluded unhampered use.
On the contrary, the private respondent argued
that: (1) the easement referred to has been extinguished by merger in the same
person of the dominant and servient estates upon the purchase of the property
from its former owner; (2) the petitioner has another adequate outlet; (3) the
petitioner has not paid any indemnity therefor; and (4) the petitioner has not
shown that the right-of-way lies at the point least prejudicial to the servient
estate.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not an easement exist on the
property; and (2) whether or not the easement had been extinguished by merger.
DECISION:
An easement exist on the property as described in
the deed of sale executed between the private respondent and the seller on the
private respondent's property, and has been in fact annotated at the back of
Transfer Certificate of Title. Hence, albeit the private respondent did acquire
ownership over the property –– including the disputed alley –– as a result of
the conveyance, it did not acquire the right to close that alley or otherwise
put up obstructions thereon and thus prevent the public from using it, because
as a servitude, the alley is supposed to be open to the public.
The easement had not been extinguished since there
was no merger. According to the Civil Code, a merger exists when ownership of
the dominant and servient estates is consolidated in the same person. Merger
then, as can be seen, requires full ownership of both estates. Merger
presupposes the existence of a prior servient-dominant owner relationship, and
the termination of that relation leaves the easement of no use. In this case,
the servitude in question is a personal servitude or one constituted not in
favor of a particular tenement (a real servitude) but rather, for the benefit
of the general public. Unless the owner conveys the property in favor of the
public –– if that is possible –– no genuine merger can take place that would
terminate a personal easement.
No comments:
Post a Comment