Scribd
Upload
517 views2 pages

Sps. Castro v. Sps. Esperanza

The Supreme Court denied the petition filed by Spouses Castro assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals had reversed the trial court's dismissal of a case filed by Spouses Esperanza against the Castros for obstructing a foot path. The foot path was established as a voluntary easement by its original owner, Nestor Reluya, for the benefit of neighbors. It had its own separate title that was retained by Reluya and passed to his heirs. Therefore, although the Esperanzas now had access to the road via a different route, the Castros did not have the right to close off the foot path and exclude others from using it as a voluntary easement.

Uploaded by

Jay jogs
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
517 views2 pages

Sps. Castro v. Sps. Esperanza

The Supreme Court denied the petition filed by Spouses Castro assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals had reversed the trial court's dismissal of a case filed by Spouses Esperanza against the Castros for obstructing a foot path. The foot path was established as a voluntary easement by its original owner, Nestor Reluya, for the benefit of neighbors. It had its own separate title that was retained by Reluya and passed to his heirs. Therefore, although the Esperanzas now had access to the road via a different route, the Castros did not have the right to close off the foot path and exclude others from using it as a voluntary easement.

Uploaded by

Jay jogs
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

SPOUSES JESUS AND AIDA CASTRO, PETITIONERS, VS.

SPOUSES FELIMON AND


LORNA ESPERANZA, RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 248763, March 11, 2020

Lazaro-Javier, J. – First Division

NATURE OF THE ACTION:

Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which
reversed and set aside the Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City.

FACTS:

Spouses Felimon and Lorna Esperanza filed their Petition for mandatory injunction with
damages against Spouses Jesus and Aida Castro. Spouses Esperanza alleged that the spouses
Castro constructed an interlinked wire fence and closed off the foot path, thereby preventing
them and their neighbors from using the same. The foot path lies between their lot and the three
lots owned by the spouses Castro.

The RTC dismissed the petition. On appeal, the CA reversed the Resolution of the RTC.
The CA found that the foot path had its own separate title, specifically TCT No. T-7735, bearing
the name of "Foot Path" and was not among the lots sold or transferred to third persons by
Nestor Reluya who remained its owner. The CA directed petitioners to remove the concrete
fence and other structures they built on the foot path and permanently enjoined them from
obstructing the ingress and egress of respondents and the other neighbors.

Petitioners argued that although the foot path has a separate title, it is intended for their
benefit and not for the benefit of respondents who already had the dry creek as their means to
access the national highway. Being a voluntary easement, control over the foot path remained
with Nestor Reluya, and after his death, control over the foot path had been transferred to them
as his successors-in-interest. Since the whole area practically belonged to them already, the foot
path no longer has any use to third persons, including respondents.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners have the authority to close off the foot path from general
use.

RULING:

None. The Petition is DENIED.

Here, respondents hinge their claim to remove the fence enclosure of the foot path on the
voluntary easement made by Nestor Reluya thereon and the fact that the same is covered by its
own title, TCT No. T-7735. As defined, an easement is a real right on another's property,
corporeal and immovable, whereby the owner of the latter must refrain from doing or allowing
somebody else to do or something to be done on his property, for the benefit of another person or
tenement. Easements are established either by law or by the will of the owner. The former are
called legal, and the latter, voluntary easements.

Generally, the owner of an estate may claim a legal or compulsory right of way only after
he or she has established the existence of these four (4) requisites: (a) the estate is surrounded by
other immovables and is without adequate outlet to a public highway; (b) after payment of the
proper indemnity; (c) the isolation was not due to the proprietor's own acts; and (d) the right of
way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate.
Notably, the opening of an adequate outlet to a highway can extinguish only legal or
compulsory easements, not voluntary easements. The fact that an easement by grant may have
also qualified as an easement of necessity does not detract from its permanency as a property
right, which survives the termination of the necessity.

The foot path was a voluntary easement constituted by Nestor Reluya and this fact was
confirmed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Further, the Court of Appeals noted that
the separate title to the foot path was retained by Nestor Reluya and later on passed on to his
heirs after his death. Also, there is no showing that the Heirs of Nestor Reluya had withdrawn the
right-of-way. Hence, although the dry creek had been turned into a gravel road that gives access
to the national highway, the foot path has not lost its nature as a voluntary easement which
benefits respondents and third persons. Surely, petitioners cannot claim the foot path as their own
and exclude third persons from using it.

Verily, the respondents had the right and legal standing to seek a writ of mandatory
injunction against petitioners, who had no authority to close off the foot path from general use.

You might also like