Case Digest: Villanueva vs. Velasco G.R. No. 130845 I November 27, 2000

FACTS:

Petitioner Bryan Villanueva is the registered owner of the parcel of land. When petitioner bought the parcel of land there was a small house on its southeastern portion. It occupied one meter of the two-meter wide easement of right of way the Gabriel spouses granted to the Espinolas, predecessors-in-interest of private respondents, in a Contract of Easement of Right of Way.

Unknown to petitioner, even before he bought the land, the Gabriels had constructed the aforementioned small house that encroached upon the two-meter easement. Petitioner was also unaware that private respondents, Julio Sebastian and Shirley Lorilla, had filed on May 8, 1991 an action for easement, damages and with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order against the spouses Gabriel. 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 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. As such, the contract of easement executed by the Gabriels in favor of the Espinolas could not be enforced against him.

The petitioner maintains that since the easement was not annotated on the Torrens title, it was extinguished upon the registration of the servient estate without the easement having been annotated therein.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the easement on the property binds the petitioner.

DECISION:

The easement on the property binds the petitioner and although he was not a party to the suit, he is a successor-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action in court. The Court affirmed the observation of the Court of Appeals that 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. 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. Conformably then, petitioner ought to demolish whatever edifice obstructs the easement in view of the needs of private respondents estate.