CASES ON EASEMENTS

1. VALISNO vs. ADRIANO

Nicolas Valisno vs Felipe Adriano
G.R. No. L-37409 | May 23, 1988
Griño-Aquino, J.:

FACTS:

Felipe Adriano , and his sister, Honorata Adriano-Francisco, both inherited parcels of land
which were irrigated by the Pampanga River. The land of Honorata was planted with different
crops , and adjoin that of Felipe on the bank of the Pampanga River through a 70m canal
traversing the land of the latter.

Valisno bought the land of Honorata which at the time of sale was irrigated by water through
the 70m canal. Several months later, Adriano levelled the canal traversing his land which
resulted in Valisno's deprivation of irrigation water to cultivate his land.

ISSUE: Is there an easement of water in favor of Valisno?

RULING: YES. The existence of the irrigation canal on Felipe's land for the passage of water
from the Pampanga River to Honorata's land prior to and at the time of the sale of Honorata's
land to the plaintiff was equivalent to a title for the vendee of the land to continue using it as
provided in Article 624 of the Civil Code

The deed of sale in favor of Valisno included the "conveyance and transfer of the water rights
and improvements" appurtenant to Honorata Adriano's property. By the terms of the Deed of
Absolute Sale, the vendor Honorata Adriano Francisco sold, ceded, conveyed and transferred to
Dr. Nicolas Valisno all "rights, title, interest and participations over the parcel of land above-
described

Water rights, such as the right to use a drainage ditch for irrigation purposes, which are
appurtenant to a parcel of land, pass with the conveyance of the land, although not specifically
mentioned in the conveyance. The purchaser's easement of necessity in a water ditch running
across the grantor's land cannot be defeated even if the water is supplied by a third person
(Watson vs. French, 112 Me 371 19 C.J. 868-897). The fact that an easement by grant may also
have qualified as an easement of necessity does detract from its permanency as property right,
which survives the determination of the necessity (Benedicto vs. CA, 25 SCRA 145).
 2. TAÑEDO V. BERNAD
Eduardo C. Tañedo vs. Hon. Juanito Bernad, Spouse Romeo Sim and Pacita Sim, and Spouses
Antonio Cardena and Mae Linda Cardenas
G.R. No. L-66520 | August 30, 1988
Padilla, J.:

FACTS: Antonio Cardenas own two parcels of land, Lot 7501-A (Lot A), and Lot 7501-B (Lot B).
Lot A has an apartment building, while Lot B also has a four-door apartment. The septic tank
for the common use of the lots is in Lot B.

Cardenas sold Lot A, while he mortgaged Lot B, both to Eduardo Tañedo. Cardenas agreed to
that he would sell Lot B to Tañedo in case he decides to sell it as the septic tank of Lot A and Lot
B stands on Lot B.

However, Cardenas did no fulfill what was agreed upon, when he sold Lot B to Spouses Sim.

Romeo Sim blocked the sewage pipe connecting the building of Tañedo built on Lot A, to the
septic tank in Lot B.

ISSUE: Is there an easement for the use of septic tank in favor of Tañedo?

RULING: YES.

The finding of the trial court that Tañedo's right to continue to use the septic tank, erected on
Lot 7501-B, ceased upon the subdivision of the land and its subsequent sale to different owners
who do not have the same interest appears to be contrary to law.

The alienation of the dominant and servient estates to different persons is not one of the
grounds for the extinguishment of an easement. On the contrary, use of the easement is
continued by operation of law.

In the instant case, no statement abolishing or extinguishing the easement of drainage was
mentioned in the deed of sale of Lot 7501-A to Eduardo Tañedo. Nor did Antonio Cardenas
stop the use of the drain pipe and septic tank by the occupants of Lot 7501-A before he sold said
lot to Eduardo Tafiedo. Hence, the use of the septic tank is continued by operation of law.
Accordingly, the spouses Romeo and Pacita Sim the new owners of the servient estate (Lot
7501- B), cannot impair, in any manner whatsoever, the use of the servitude.
 3. WILLIAMS VS ZERDA
Spouses Larry and Rosarita Williams vs. Rainero A. Zerda
G.R. No. 207146 | March 15, 2017
Mendoza, J.:

Zerda owns a parcel of land. The parcel of land is surrounded be different properties to wit: (1)
behind it is a swampy mangove area (owned be the State), beside it are two lots, (2) one owned
be Woodridge Properties, and (3) the other is owned by Luis Dilag, in front is the low owned
by Spouses Williams where the national highway ran along.

Zerda file for easement of right of way against Spouses Williams. The complaint alleged that
Zerda's lot was without adequate outlet to a public highway, that it could not be accessed
except by passing through Spouses Williams' property; that the isolation of Zerda's property
was not due to his own acts, as it was the natural consequence of its location; that the right of
way he was claiming was at a point least prejudicial to Spouses Williams' property; and that
Zerda wrote to Spouses Williams formally asking them to provide him with right of way, for
which he was willing to pay its reasonable value or to swap a portion of his property, but
Spouses Williams refused.

Spouses Williams countered that Zerda failed to establish that the isolation of Zerda's property
was not due to his own acts. They averred that Zerda knew that the Spouses Williams were
already introducing improvements on the lot when Zerda bought the dominant estate.

ISSUE: Is Zerda entitled to an easement of right of way

RULING: YES. In summary, an entitlement to the easement of right of way requires that the
following requisites must be met.

1. The dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a
public highway (Art. 649, par. 1);
2. There is payment of proper indemnity (Art. 649, par. 1);
3. The isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate (Art. 649, last
par.); and
4. The right of way claimed is 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 (Art. 650).

All the above requisites are present in this case.

As regards the first requisite, there is no dispute that the respondent's property was surrounded
by other immovables owned by different individuals, including Spouses Williams.
The second requisite of payment of indemnity was also complied with by the respondent when
he wrote Spouses Williams on January 27, 2004, formally asking them to provide him with a
right of way, for which he was willing to pay a reasonable value or to swap a portion of his
property.

Anent the third requisite, the isolation of the dominant estate was not due to the respondent's
own acts. The property he purchased was already surrounded by other immovables leaving
him no adequate ingress or egress to a public highway.

As to the fourth requisite, the Court finds that the right of way sought by the respondent is at
the point least prejudicial to the servient estate and it is the shortest distance to the national
highway.