Permanent

Easement is a real right requiring the owner of a real property (servient estate) to refrain from doing or allowing something to be done or somebody else to do something on his property for the benefit of another person or property (dominant estate). It is established by law (legal easement) or by the will of the owner (voluntary easement). The kind of easement is important in determining the rights of the parties as shown in this case.

The case involved a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 176253 registered in the name of a commercial and development company (UCDC). The title contains a memorandum of encumbrance carried over from the original title in the name of Sunico granting a voluntary easement in favor of Hilario the owner of the adjacent lot 2 to pass through said land so that Hilario could have access to the road.

As Sunico’s property was transferred to several owners said encumbrance of voluntary easement in favor of Hilario was consistently annotated at the back of every title covering Sunico’s property up to UCDC’s title. On the other hand Hilario’s property was eventually transferred to the brothers Jerry, Carlo and Mario under TCT No. 121488.

On May 26, 2000, UCDC filed a Petition to cancel the said encumbrance of voluntary easement of right of way, annotated in its title. As grounds for the petition UCDC claimed that the property of Jerry, Carlo and Mario is no longer an enclosed estate as it already has access to a public road and that the easement is personal only to Hilario since the annotation merely mentioned Sunico and Hilario. In fact UCDC pointed out that said easement does not even appear on the title of Jerry, Carlo and Mario (TCT 121488). Can the encumbrance be already cancelled as petitioned by UCDC?

No. The opening of an adequate outlet to a highway or public road can extinguish only a legal or compulsory easement, not a voluntary easement like in the case at bar. The fact that an easement by voluntary 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. A voluntary easement of right of way, like any other contract, could be extinguished only by mutual agreement or by the renunciation of the owner of the property in whose favor it is established (dominant estate).

While only Sunico and Hilario are the ones mentioned in the annotation, and their assigns or successors in interest are no longer mentioned, the easement is still binding on the latter. As already mentioned, a voluntary easement is like any other contract, hence it is generally effective between the parties, their heirs and assigns except in cases where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law.

Although the easement does not appear in the title of the owner of the dominant estate (Jerry, Carlo and Mario) the same subsists. A voluntary easement may be extinguished only if it is not annotated on the title of the owner of the servient estate or UCDC in this case (Unisorce Commercial etc vs. Chung et. al. G.R. 173252, July 17, 2009).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]