Trias v.

Araneta | GR# L-20786 | October 30, 1965 (Voluntary Easements) Limitation is essentially a contractual obligation between Seller and Buyer, restricting the free use of the land by
buyer.
Parties The limitation is essentially a contractual obligation which the seller, Tuason & Co., Inc. (thru Araneta Inc.) imposed,
 JM Tuason: Original owner of the Land and the purchaser agreed to accept. Of course, it restricts the free use of the parcel of land by the purchaser.
 Araneta Inc.: Acted as Broker
 Rafael Trias: Purchaser of the Land In this case: It is proper for Araneta to oppose the elimination of the condition on the TCT, because if erased, a
subsequent buyer will get a new TCT without the annotation and might build a factory.
Property in Question: Now, it is proper for Tuason & Co., Inc. (thru Araneta, Inc.) to oppose the elimination of the condition from the
 Property purchased by Rafael Trias in Quezon City certificate of title, because, if it is erased, a purchaser who gets a new certificate of title without the annotation, will
hold the lot free from the encumbrance, and might build a factory there.2 As declared by sec. 39 of Act 496 as
Facts: amended, "every purchaser of registered land ... shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted in
 JM Tuason owned a parcel of land in QC that was part of a Subdivision. said certificate."
o Through a broker, Araneta Inc, the land was sold to Mateo and Lopez
 JM Tuason imposed the prohibition that the land should never be used to erect a The existence of zoning ordinances is immaterial. If the ordinance is repealed, prohibition is not enforceable against
factory   new buyers of the land.
 This was annotated in the back of the TCT. The existence of a zoning ordinance prohibiting factories in the area is immaterial. The ordinance might be repealed
 After several transfers, which was always subject to the prohibition, Rafaela Trias acquired the lot, still at any time; and if so repealed, this prohibition would not be enforceable against new purchasers of the land, who
subject to the prohibition. may be ignorant thereof. The same remark applies to Rafaela's promise not to build a factory on the lot: new owners
o Trias filed for a petition to cancel of the annotation on the back of the TCT of the prohibition on might not be bound.
Building factories, as she could not get a loan due to the prohibition.
o She also noted that it was merely surplusage, because there was already a zoning ordinance that A problem might arise if and when the ordinance is amended so as to convert the area into an industrial zone —
prohibits the same. impliedly permitting factories. Probably, the limitation might still bind the lot owner (with annotation) ; but it is not
 2 weeks later, Gregorio Araneta Inc moved for reconsideration, stating that the imposition resulted from a the present issue, and we do not now decide it.
valid sales transaction between her pred-in-interest, and that the prohibition against factories was valid and not
a surplusage

Issue:
WON Imposition was valid.

Held:
Yes. The Imposition not to build Factories on the lot purchased was Valid.

Imposition was actually an easement, every real estate owner may validly impose so long as not contrary to L, PP,
PO.
The imposition is in reality an easement, which every owner of real estate may validly impose under… 

Art. 688 of the New Civil Code, which provides that “the owner of a piece of land may establish thereon the
easements which he may deem suitable,… provided he does not contravene law, public policy, or public order.

No laws contravened in imposition of condition of no factories built on the land.

Here, no law was cited that outlawed the condition/limitation [of no factories] which was imposed by the owner of
the subdivision to establish a residential section in that area, or the purpose of assuring purchasers of the lots that the
peace and quiet of the place will not be disturbed by noise or smoke of factories.