8/9/2019 1. Cuayong vs. Benedicto, 37 Phil 781 - Digest

1/2

EDUARDO CUAYCONG, ET AL., plaintifs-appellees,vs.RAMONA BENEDICTO, ET AL., deendants-appellants.G.R. No. L-9989March 13, 1918

FISHER,  J.:

Deendants are the owner o Nanca-ictorias road sit!ated "etween the so!thern "o!ndar# o the $acien%oreno and the "arrio o Nanca, o the &!nicipalit# o 'eravia, and the appellees are the lessees o part o s

haciendas. %he Nanca-ictorias road has "een in e(istence or at least ort# #ears. the hacenderos located in tso!thwestern section o ictorias and the p!"lic )enerall# passed over it reel# and that it was !sed or p!rposes o transportation o ar& prod!ce, ani&als, etc. and "# pedestrians as well as carro&atas and otconve#ances witho!t "rea* or interr!ption !ntil two or three #ears a)o when the deendants anno!nced that road was private and that those who wished to pass over it with s!)ar carts wo!ld "e o"li)ed to pa# a toll o centavos + all other vehicles, it appears, were per&itted to pass ree char)e. %his arran)e&ent see&s to hae(isted d!rin) the #ears o 1911 and 191 and part o 1913, the &one# "ein) collected apparentl# ro& so&hacenderos and not ro& others. %here is so&e reason to "elieve ro& the evidence presented "# deendathe&selves that the practice o &a*in) these pa#&ents to hacienda %oreno ori)inated in an atte&pt to rais!nd or the repair o the road. %here is no evidence that an# other hacenderos "etween Nanca and ictoriasan# other person &ade an# atte&pt to close the road or to collect toll. n the contrar# the road appears to ha"een repaired "# the hacenderos when it needed repairin) and ever#one !sed it on e/!al ter&s !ntil tdeendants in 1910 or 1911 interposed the o"ection that the road in disp!te was private. %his we thin* is a

ded!ction ro& the evidence and altho!)h it is asserted that toll was collected at an earlier date "# the laLeon Montinola, "rother o the deendant R!perto Montinola, there is no tan)i"le evidence that this was so athat toll has "een paid onl# d!rin) the #ears o 1911, 191, and part o 1913. 2pon these aver&ents o act tplaintifs pra#ed or a !d)&ent that the# are entitled to !se the road in /!estion as the# have "een !sin) itthe past, and that a perpet!al in!nction "e iss!ed a)ainst plaintifs restrainin) the& ro& i&pendin) s!ch !s

2pon the lin) o the co&plaint, plaintifs &oved the co!rt to iss!e a preli&inar# in!nction restraindeendants ro& intererin) with the !se o the road d!rin) the pendenc# o the s!it, which &otion was )ran"# the co!rt.

ISSUE:

4heter or Not the Nanca-ictorias road at the point at which it traverses the $acienda %oreno a p!"lic hi)hwor not5

HELD:

%he trial !d)e, in holdin) that the road in /!estion is p!"lic, "ases in concl!sion !pon the act, which he deeto have "een proven, that the road has "een in e(istence 6ro& ti&e i&&e&orial,6 and had "een 6continio!!sed as a p!"lic road . . . and open to p!"lic as s!ch or thirt# or ort# #ears . . . !ntil . . . the deenda!ndertoo* to clai& it as private and to collect toll or the passa)e o carts.6 %here is no do!"t that or the pathirt# or ort# #ears a road has e(isted "etween the or&er site o the town o ictorias and the "arrio o Nano the &!nicipalit# o 'eravia, and that this road crosses deendants hacienda.

%he co!rt also held that it appears ro& the )overn&ent )rant iss!ed in 1887 to the ori)inal owner o

hacienda adacent to the $acienda %oreno on its western "o!ndar#, that the Nanca-ictorias road at that tiseparated that estate ro& the al"!ena $acienda, and that these acts constit!te 6circ!&stantial evidence tthe road was in e(istence in 1887.6 4e have e(a&ined the doc!&ent to which the co!rt reers, and we a)that the road in /!estion e(isted in 1887 "!t we do not "elieve that the doc!&ent in /!estion proves that troad was public highway .

%here is ad&ittedl# no evidence to show that the land occ!pied "# the road here in /!estion was an# ticonve#ed to the )eneral )overn&ent or an# o its political s!"divisions "# the present or an# o the or&owners o the $acienda %oreno. %here is no evidence, even re&otel#, tendin) to show that the road e(isted prto the ti&e when the propert# now *nown as the $acienda %oreno passed ro& the 'tate into private ownersh%he record ails to disclose an# evidence whatever tendin) to show that the Govern&ent has at an# tiasserted an# ri)ht or title in or to the land occ!pied "# the road, or that it has inc!rred an# e(pense whateveits !p*eep or constr!ction. %he :ivil :ode denes as p!"lic roads those which are constr!cted "# the 'tate ;

8/9/2019 1. Cuayong vs. Benedicto, 37 Phil 781 - Digest

2/2

339