chinabank vs. benjamin co

8/11/2019 Chinabank vs. Benjamin Co

1/9

kanang digests lang. basta ma answer ang question:1. when siya required?- payment of indemnity is a requisite for the grant of compulsory easement of right of way (Art. !" #$$%&owner of dominant estate should be willing to tender payment for the indemnity (see 'ichoso $asebelow%& if public road na ang portion where the easement is established& owner of dominant estate mustclearly show documents (see icol Agro )ndustrial and *oodridge cases below% & cannot be acquiredthrough long use+ prescription kasi discontinuous (see ogo ,edellin and uintanilla $ases below%. kinsa dapat ang mag request for /ust compensation- owner sa ser0ient estate (Art. !"& and icol Agro $ase%& amount of indemnity (factual& not specific seeicol Agro $ase below%& e0en though the property is not the only outlet& pwede makademand ng legaleasement (see ta. ,aria 0s $A case below%2. puede ba pri0ate party ang pangayuan og /ust compensation?3- these cases below in0ol0e pri0ate parties

basta ang case kay gusto sa kalaban sa akong client na pabayaron akong client sa road right of way.nag demand man akong client na i-maintain ang kalsada og dili ibaligya. pero ang kalsada in question kayrecogni4ed na by the city as a road kaso wala nakabutang sa titulo na road siya. so ang /urisprudence willanswer kung nganong dili dapat maghatag akong client og /ust compensation. basta& kana ang brief0ersion. hehehe3

- icheck nalang nato ulit ang classification sa road kay basi nakapangalan na/ud sa city& or if e0er

magadduce ta documents na public road na siya (*oodridge $ase%& tapos naa koi gicite belownga case tung remedy5 nga char5. haha. see nalang below. 6%


2/9

)$78 A97-)#';$7 constructed a road (the disputed road3% . $7. dmundo 7bias et al. alleging thatthey un/ustifiably barricaded the disputed road by placing bamboos& woods& placards and stones across it&pre0enting petitionerDs and the other sugar planterDs 0ehicles from passing through the disputed road&thereby causing serious damage and pre/udice to petitioner.

=etitioner alleged that );'>$7 constructed the disputed road pursuant to an agreement withthe owners of the ricefields the road tra0ersed. =etitioner contends that through prolonged and continuoususe of the disputed road& );'>$7 acquired a right of way o0er the properties of the landowners& whichright of way in turn was acquired by it when it bought );'>$7Ds assets. icol Agro also argues that the$A erred in not finding that );'>$7 and respondents forged an agreement for the construction of theroad in dispute.

)ssues + 'iscussion

Nature of Easement of Right of Way

>asement or ser0itude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immo0able for thebenefit of another immo0able belonging to a different owner. y its creation& easement isestablished either by law (in which case it is a legal easement% or by will of the parties (a0oluntary easement%. )n terms of use& easement may either be continuous ordiscontinuous. The easement of right of way the privilege of persons or aparticular class of persons to pass over anothers land, usually through oneparticular path or linen is characterized as a discontinuous easement because itsuse is in intervals and depends on the act of man !ecause of this character& aneasement of a right of way may only be ac"uired by virtue of a title.

Article of the #ew $i0il $ode is the applicable law in the case at bar& viz:

Art. . $ontinuous non-apparent easements& and discontinuous ones&whether apparent or not& may be ac"uired only by virtue of a title.ased on the foregoing& in order for petitioner to acquire the disputed road as an easement of

right-of-way& it was incumbent upon petitioner to show its right by title or by an agreement with the ownersof the lands that said road tra0ersed.

#ay Easement of Right of Way be ac"uired through prescription$ #7.

Applying Bogo-Medellinto the case at bar& the conclusion is ine0itable that the road in dispute is adiscontinuous easement notwithstanding that the same may be apparent. $7 was a go0ernment-owned and controlled corporation and considering that the disputed road was constructed during the timeof ,artial 8aw.


3/9


4/9

easement of right of way as she acknowledged the absence of an access from their property to the roadKand that alternati0e defendants& despite plaintiffsD request for a right of way and referral of the dispute tothe barangay officials& refused to grant them an easement.


5/9

)n the case at bar& the ocular inspection disclosed that there are three options open to the plaintiffs-appellees as a route to reach the national road& to wit:(1%


6/9


7/9

pri0ate road about fi0e hundred (E% meters long. lena treet&which is about .E meters wide& and finally& to isayas A0enue.


8/9

(a%


9/9

*77')'9> $C778& )#$. and ,)9;>8A G),>#>N-GA)> 9.. #o. 1E@IE Bebruary 1& @

Bacts: *oodridge is the usufructuary of a parcel of land in the name of spouses >rnesto

chinabank vs. benjamin co

Documents