FACTS:
On November 17, 1916, several hacienda owners
Manapla, Occidental Negros entered into a contract with Miguel J. Osorio, known
as milling contract, wherein Osorio agreed to install in Manapla a sugar
central of a minimum capacity of 300 tons, for grinding and milling all the
sugar cane to be grown by the hacienda owners, who in turn bound themselves to
furnish the central with all the cane they might produce in their estates for
thirty years from the execution of the contract, all in accordance with the
conditions specified therein. Later on, the defendant North Negros Sugar Co.,
Inc., acquired the rights and interest of Miguel J. Osorio in the milling
contract aforesaid.
Two years thereafter, the hacienda owners in
Manapla entered into other milling contracts. In view of the fact that the
hacienda owners, who were up to that time customers of the central, could not
furnish sufficient cane for milling, as required by the capacity of said
central, the defendant made other milling contracts with various hacienda
owners of Cadiz, Occidental Negros, in order to obtain sufficient cane to
sustain the central; and this gave rise to the plaintiffs filing their
complaint, alleging that the easement of way, which each of them has
established in his respective hacienda, was only for the transportation through
each hacienda of the sugar cane of the owner thereof, while the defendant
maintains that it had the right to transport to its central upon the railroad
passing through the haciendas of the plaintiffs, not only the sugar cane
harvested in said haciendas, but also that of the hacienda owners of Cadiz,
Occidental Negros.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the easement of right of way
established in favour of North Negros Sugar Co., Inc., shall be exclusively
used in transporting sugar cane by hacienda owners of Manapla.
DECISION:
The easement of right of way was constituted in
favour of North Negros Sugar Co., Inc., and as such it can be used in
transporting sugar cane not only by the hacienda owners of Manapla but also by
other sugarcane suppliers. It is against the nature of the easement to pretend
that it was established in favor of the servient estates, because it is a well
settled rule that things serve their owner by reason of ownership and not by
reason of easement. This is a case of an easement for the benefit of a corporation,
voluntarily created by the plaintiffs upon their respective estates for the
construction of a railroad connecting said estates with the central of the
defendant. Once the road is constructed, the easement is apparent because it is
continuously exposed to view by the rails which reveal the use and enjoyment of
said easement.
No comments:
Post a Comment