EASEMENT NOTES

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.

As we have said, the opening of an adequate outlet to a highway can

extinguish only legal or compulsory easements, not voluntary easements
like in the case at bar. 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. A
voluntary easement of right of way, like any other contract, could be
extinguished only by mutual agreement or by renunciation of the owner of
the dominant estate.

Neither can petitioner claim that the easement is personal only to Hidalgo
since the annotation merely mentioned Sandico and Hidalgo without
equally binding their heirs or assigns. That the heirs or assigns of the
parties were not mentioned in the annotation does not mean that it is not
binding on them. Again, a voluntary easement of right of way is like any
other contract. As such, it is generally effective between the parties, their
heirs and assigns, except in case where the rights and obligations arising
from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or
by provision of law.

We also hold that although the easement does not appear in respondents’
title over the dominant estate, the same subsists. It is settled that the
registration of the dominant estate under the Torrens system without the
annotation of the voluntary easement in its favor does not extinguish the
easement. On the contrary, it is the registration of the servient estate as
free, that is, without the annotation of the voluntary easement, which
extinguishes the easement.29

Finally, the mere fact that respondents subdivided the property does not
extinguish the easement. Article 618 30 of the Civil Code provides that if the
dominant estate is divided between two or more persons, each of them
may use the easement in its entirety, without changing the place of its use,
or making it more burdensome in any other way.

(Unisource Commercial and Development Corporation vs Chung, et.al. ,

G.R. No. 173252, 17 July 2009)

An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable

for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner. The
immovable in favor of which the easement is established is called the
dominant estate; that which is subject thereto, the servient estate.

The extinguishment is not automatic, because the law says that the servient
owner “may demand.’’ It follows that if he chooses not to demand, the
easement remains and he has no duty to refund the indemnity.

The above quoted law only applied to the legal or compulsory easement of
right of way, NOT to a voluntary one.

 The owner of an estate may claim a legal right of way only after he
has established the existence of all the requisites.
 The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least
prejudicial to the servient estate
 Easement of right of way is not compulsory if the isolation of the
immovable is due to the proprietor ’s own acts.
 The owner of an estate may claim a legal right of way only after he
has established the existence of all the requisites.
  The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least
prejudicial to the servient estate
 Easement of right of way is not compulsory if the isolation of the
immovable is due to the proprietor ’s own acts.
 The owner of an estate may claim a legal right of way only after he
has established the existence of all the requisites.
 The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least
prejudicial to the servient estate
 Easement of right of way is not compulsory if the isolation of the
immovable is due to the proprietor ’s own acts.

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.

In the case of Jose Ma. Locsin, et al. v. Rafael C. Climaco (L-27319, Jan. 31,
1969)  explained that the owner of an estate may claim a compulsory (legal)
right of way only after he has established the existence of 4 requisites,
namely:

a. the estate is surrounded by other immovables, and is without

adequate outlet to a public highway;
b. payment of the proper indemnity;
c. the isolation should not be due to the proprietor’s own acts;
d. the right of way claimed is at a 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.
The onus or burden of proof is upon the owner of the dominant estate to
show by specific averments in his complaints the existence of the requisites
or pre-conditions enumerated.

The Proper Indemnity

a. If the passage is permanent, pay the value of land occupied by the
path plus damages. Upon extinction of the easement, the indemnity
is returned without interest, for the interest is considered rent.
b. If temporary, pay for the damages caused. It is temporary when, for
example, the estate is not being cultivated the whole year round, and
when harvesting is only once in a while.
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.