FACTS:
Guillermo Ceniza died intestate leaving a parcel
of land at Poblacion, Mandaue City. Twenty years later his children executed an
extrajudicial declaration of heirs and partition, adjudicating and dividing the
land among themselves. Lots A, B, and C were adjacent to a city street. But
Lots D and E were not, they being interior lots. To give these interior lots
access to the street, the heirs established in their extrajudicial partition an
easement of right of way consisting of a 3-meter wide alley between Lots D and
E that continued on between Lots A and B and on to the street. The partition
that embodied this easement of right of way was annotated on the individual
titles issued to the heirs.
But, realizing that the partition resulted in an
unequal division of the property, the heirs modified their agreement by
eliminating the easement of right of way along Lots A, D, and E, and in its
place, imposed a 3-meter wide alley, an easement of right of way, that ran
exclusively along the southwest boundary of Lot B from Lots D and E to the
street.
Petitioner Victoria became the owner of Lot A, one
of the three lots adjacent to the city street. Victoria and her husband (the
Salimbangons) constructed a residential house on this lot and built two garages
on it. One garage abutted the street while the other, located in the interior
of Lot A, used the alley or easement of right of way existing on Lot B to get
to the street. Victoria had this alley cemented and gated.
Respondent spouses Santos and Erlinda Tan (the
Tans) bought Lots B, C, D, and E from all their owners. The Tans built
improvements on Lot B that spilled into the easement area. They also closed the
gate that the Salimbangons built. Unable to use the old right of way, the
Salimbangons lodged a complaint with the City Engineer of Mandaue against the
Tans. For their part, the Tans filed an action against the Salimbangons for the
extinguishment of the easement on Lot B and damages with application for
preliminary injunction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the easement of right of way
established by the partition agreement among the heirs has been extinguished.
DECISION:
The easement of right way for the benefit of Lots D and E was extinguished.
The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that based on the testimony
of one of the previous owners, Eduardo Ceniza, the true intent of the parties
was to establish that easement of right of way for the benefit of the interior
lots, namely, Lots D and E. Consequently, when ownership of Lots B, D, and E
was consolidated into the Tans, the easement ceased to have any purpose and
became extinct.
No comments:
Post a Comment