Scribd
Upload
95 views2 pages

CID Vs

This document discusses three court cases related to easements: 1) CID vs. JAVIER - The court ruled that the respondents did not acquire an easement of light and view through prescription because there was no notarial prohibition as required by law. Even if they had acquired the easement, it was extinguished when the properties were registered without annotating the easement. 2) FRANCISCO VS. PAEZ - The court ruled that the plaintiff's right of way was not extinguished through prescription or waiver. Legal easements for private individuals can be waived but not extinguished. 3) BENEDICTO V. CA - The court ruled that an easement of way was

Uploaded by

HEART SANTOS
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
95 views2 pages

CID Vs

This document discusses three court cases related to easements: 1) CID vs. JAVIER - The court ruled that the respondents did not acquire an easement of light and view through prescription because there was no notarial prohibition as required by law. Even if they had acquired the easement, it was extinguished when the properties were registered without annotating the easement. 2) FRANCISCO VS. PAEZ - The court ruled that the plaintiff's right of way was not extinguished through prescription or waiver. Legal easements for private individuals can be waived but not extinguished. 3) BENEDICTO V. CA - The court ruled that an easement of way was

Uploaded by

HEART SANTOS
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CID vs.

JAVIER- Notarial Prohibition

Notarial prohibition is required to start the running of prescription. Also Registration of the Immovable without the
registration of the easement extinguishes the easement.

FACTS: The easement in dispute here is an easement of light and view, which is a negative easement. The respondents
Javier, et al are the owners of the building standing on their lot with windows overlooking the adjacent lot. Respondents
have claimed that they had acquired by prescription an enforceable easement of light and view arising from a verbal
prohibition to obstruct such view and light. The lower courts have ruled in their favor.

Note: easement of light and view is continuous and apparent so it is subject to prescription.

ISSUES: Whether or not the respondents Irene P. Javier, et al., owners of a building standing on their lot with windows
overlooking the adjacent lot, had acquired by prescription an enforceable easement of light and view arising from a
verbal prohibition to obstruct such view and light, alleged to have been made upon petitioners predecessor-in-interest
as owner of the adjoining lot, both of which lots being covered by Torrens titles.

RULING: NO. Art538s requirement is a formal act and not just any verbal or written act. Formal act contemplated in
art538 in the OLD Civil Code pertains to an instrument acknowledged before a notary public. Prescription for a negative
easement only begins when there is a notarial prohibition by the dominant estate. Respondents could have not acquired
the easement by prescription because they have not fulfilled this requirement. Even assuming they have acquired it, the
easement no longer exists because the properties were registered under the Torrens system without any annotation or
registration of the said easement.

FRANCISCO VS. PAEZ

FACTS: The plaintiff claims a right of way, upon payment of indemnity, across defendant Paez's land; that the latter
recognize the plaintiff's ownership of a piece of land of 23.46 square meters, that he vacate it, and that the defendant
indemnify him for the damages arising from said occupation. Defendant Paez answered with a general denial and set up
the special defense of prescription. Defendant Jabson, in turn, also answered with a general denial, and by way of
special defense denied that the plaintiff has any right of way over his land, because outside of it there is another
possible way to the street, which is shorter and less prejudicial.

ISSUE: Whether the plaintiff's right of way over defendant Paez's land has prescribed or is imprescriptible.

HELD: NO. The mere fact that the plaintiff and his predecessors refrained from claiming the easement, without any
positive act to imply a real waiver, does not bring the case within the provision of the article 546, No. 5, of the Civil
Code. such a right of way, provided by the law for the benefit of private individuals, may be waived FOR Legal easements
established in the interest of private individuals may be waived, but not so those of public utility. But the court holds,
for the reasons stated above, that said article 546, No. 5, Civil Code, is not applicable to the instant case, with reference
to waiver, nor is No. 2 of the same article, regarding non-user; and therefore, the plaintiff's right of way cannot be
deemed extinguished. THUS, the plaintiff is entitled to a right of way through the shortest and least prejudicial portion
of the servient estate, from plaintiff's through defendant Timoteo Paez's.

BENEDICTO V. CA

FACTS: Hendrick was the owner of a property which half of it was sold to Recto. An easement of way was annotated in
the certificates of title. Subsequently, the remaining half of the property was sold to Herras who then closed and walled
the part of land serving as easement of way.

ISSUE: Whether or not the easement has been extinguished by nonuser

HELD: NO. The easement is perpetual in character and was annotated in all the certificates of title. Absence of anything
that would show mutual agreement to extinguish the easement, the easement persists. here is no indubitable proof of
nonuser. Benedicto merely assumes that the passageway in question had not been in use since 1941 because the
property of Heras has since gained direct access to San Marcelino street with the demolition of his house. For another,
even if we assume that the period of prescription based on nonuser is 10 years, the very testimony of the petitioner
Benedicto shows that it was only in 1946 that he had the passageway walled in by constructing a fence, and since the
present action was filed in 1955, granting that article 631 of the Civil Code is applicable, the prescriptive period has not
yet elapsed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy