582 Phil. 328
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
A parcel of land classified as residential lot, bounded on the North by Lot No. 25569, on the East, by Lot No. 247, 251, on the South, by a Creek and on the West, by Lot No. 223-A, declared under Tax Decl. No. 52820, with an area of 380 square meters, more or less, and assessed at P 17100.00 for the current year. It is not registered under Act 496 nor under the Spanish Mortgage Law. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)The pertinent portions of the deed read:
x x x xRespondents subsequently built a concrete wall on the western side of the subject property.[2] Believing that that side is the intended road right of way mentioned in the deed, petitioners, through their representative, reported the matter to the barangay for mediation and conciliation. Respondents failed to attend the conferences scheduled by the barangay, however, drawing petitioners to file in April 1999 or more than six years after the execution of the deed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages[3] against respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando City, La Union.
That for and in consideration of the sum of SEVENTY THOUSAND (P70,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currencyp [sic] paid to us at our entire satisfaction by spouses VICTOR and JOECELYN [sic] VALDEZ, both of legal age, Filipinos and residents of 148 P. Burgos St., San Fernando, La Union, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby SELL, CONVEY and TRANSFER by way of absolute sale unto the said spouses Victor and Joecelyn Valdez, their heirs and assigns, the TWO HUNDRED (200) SQUARE METERS, EASTERN PORTION of the parcel of land above-described, free from all liens and encumbrances.
x x x x
That now and hereinafter, said VENDEE-SPOUSES VICTOR and JOECELYN [sic] VALDEZ shall be the absolute owners of the said 200 sq. meters, eastern portion and that we shall warrant and forever defend their ownership of the same against the claims of all persons whomsoever; they shall be provided a 2 1/2 meters [sic] wide road right-of-way on the western side of their lot but which is not included in this sale.
x x x.x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the defendants as against the plaintiffs and hereby orders the Complaint dismissed for being unmeritorious and plaintiffs are hereby ordered to pay the defendants, the following:On appeal by petitioners, the Court of Appeals, by Decision of May 29, 2006,[12] affirmed that of the trial court, it holding that the deed only conveyed ownership of the subject property to petitioners, and that the reference therein to an easement in favor of petitioners is not a definite grant-basis of a voluntary easement of right of way.[13]
1) P100,000.00 as moral damages;
2) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
3) P50,000.00 as attorney's fees;
4) P30,000.00 as expenses of litigation; and
5) To pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[11] (Underscoring supplied)
An easement or servitude is "a real right constituted on another's property, corporeal and immovable, by virtue of which the owner of the same has to abstain from doing or to allow somebody else to do something on his property for the benefit of another thing or person."[17] The statutory basis of this right is Article 613 of the Civil Code which reads:
- . . . IN RULING THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY IS NOT PART OF THE ABSOLUTE DEED OF SALE DATED JANUARY 11, 1993;
- . . . IN RULING THAT THE PROVISION OF THE ABSOLUTE DEED OF SALE GRANTING A RIGHT OF WAY IS VAGUE AND OBSCURE;
- . . . IN AWARDING MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES TO THE RESPONDENTS.[16] (Underscoring supplied)
Art. 613. An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner.There are two kinds of easements according to source - by law or by the will of the owners. So Article 619 of the Civil Code provides:
The immovable in favor of which the easement is established is called the dominant estate; that which is subject thereto, the servient estate.
Art. 708. The Registry of Property has for its object the inscription or annotation of acts and contracts relating to the ownership and other rights over immovable property.Petitioners are neither entitled to a legal or compulsory easement of right of way. For to be entitled to such kind of easement, the preconditions under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code must be established, viz:
Art. 709. The titles of ownership, or of other rights over immovable property, which are not duly inscribed or annotated in the Registry of Property shall not prejudice third persons.
Art. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons, and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.Thus, to be conferred a legal easement of right of way under Article 649, the following requisites must be complied with: (1) the property is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) proper indemnity must be paid; (3) the isolation is not the result of the owner of the dominant estate's own acts; (4) the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and (5) to the extent consistent with the foregoing rule, the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.[21] The onus of proving the existence of these prerequisites lies on the owner of the dominant estate,[22] herein petitioners.
x x x x
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts. (Underscoring supplied)
Art. 650. The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest. (Underscoring supplied)
x x x xWhile respondent Caridad Tabisula claimed that she always appeared, when summoned, before the barangay lupon,[29] the following Certificate to File Action[30] belies the claim.
ARTICLE 199. Penalty for Refusal or Failure of Any Party or Witness to Appear before the Lupon or Pangkat. -- Refusal or willful failure of any party or witness to appear before the lupon or pangkat in compliance with summons issued pursuant to this Rule may be punished by the city or municipal court as for indirect contempt of court upon application filed therewith by the lupon chairman, the pangkat chairman, or by any of the contending parties. Such refusal or willful failure to appear shall be reflected in the records of the lupon secretary or in the minutes of the pangkat secretary and shall bar the complainant who fails to appear, from seeking judicial recourse for the same course of action, and the respondent who refuses to appear, from filing any counterclaim arising out of, or necessarily connected with the complaint.
x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
x x x xThe award for moral damages being thus baseless, that for exemplary damages must too be baseless.
This is to certify that respondents failed to appear for (2) Mediation Proceeding before our Punong Barangay thus the corresponding complaint may now be filed in court.
Issued this 24th day of November 1998 at the Multi Purpose Hall, Barangay 1 City of San Fernando (LU).
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or an interest therein are governed by Articles 1403, No. 2 and 1405;
(2) x x x
(3) x x x
(4) x x x