Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
MARGARITA F. CASTRO, Petitioner, - versus - NAPOLEON A. MONSOD, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 183719
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February
2, 2011 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before
the Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision[1]
dated May 25, 2007 and the Resolution[2]
dated July 14, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 83973.
The
antecedents of the case are as follows:
Petitioner
is the registered owner of a parcel of land located on
On
February 29, 2000, respondent caused the annotation of an adverse claim against
sixty-five (65) sq.m. of the property of petitioner covered by TCT No. T-36071.
The adverse claim was filed without any claim of ownership over the property.
Respondent was merely asserting the existing legal easement of lateral and
subjacent support at the rear portion of his estate to prevent the property
from collapsing, since his property is located at an elevated plateau of
fifteen (15) feet, more or less, above the level of petitioner’s property.[4]
Respondent also filed a complaint for malicious mischief and malicious
destruction before the office of the barangay
chairman.[5]
In
defiance, petitioner filed a complaint for damages with temporary restraining
order/writ of preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Las Piñas City. Petitioner also prayed that the Register of Deeds of Las Piñas
City be ordered to cancel the annotation of the adverse claim on TCT No.
T-36071.[6]
Prior
to the filing of the case before the RTC, there were deposits of soil and rocks
about two (2) meters away from the front door of the house of
petitioner. As such, petitioner was
not able to park her vehicle at the dead-end portion of
Petitioner
averred that when she bought the property from
For
his part, respondent claimed that he and his family had been residing in
Before
the said excavation, respondent personally complained to Pilar
Development Corporation and was
assured that, as provided by the National Building Code, an embankment will be
retained at the boundary of Manuela Homes and Moonwalk Village, which is more
or less fifteen (15) feet higher than Manuela Homes.[10]
Respondent
asserted that the affidavit of adverse claim was for the annotation of the
lateral and subjacent easement of his property over the property of petitioner,
in view of the latter’s manifest determination to remove the embankment left by
the developer of
On
October 11, 2004, the RTC rendered a decision,[11]
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court hereby renders judgment: (1) ordering the cancellation of [respondent’s] adverse claim at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-36071 at the expense of [respondent] Napoleon Monsod; (2) ordering the said [respondent] to pay the herein [petitioner] the amount of Php50,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) dismissing [petitioner’s] claim for actual damages, attorney’s fees, litigation costs and costs of suit and [respondent’s] compulsory counterclaim for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[12]
The
trial court ratiocinated that the adverse claim of respondent was
non-registrable considering that the basis of his claim was an easement and not
an interest adverse to the registered owner, and neither did he contest the
title of petitioner. Furthermore, the adverse claim of respondent failed to
comply with the requisites provided under Section 70 of Presidential Decree No.
1529.[13]
On
appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court in a Decision[14]
dated May 25, 2007, the fallo of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 198, Las Piñas City dated October 11, 2004 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Court hereby orders the retention of the annotation at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-36071, not as an adverse claim, but a recognition of the existence of a legal easement of subjacent and lateral support constituted on the lengthwise or horizontal land support/embankment area of sixty-five (65) square meters, more or less, of the property of [petitioner] Margarita Castro. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court on April 18, 2006 is hereby made permanent. [Petitioner’s] claim for damages is likewise DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[15]
The
CA ruled that while respondent’s adverse claim could not be sanctioned because
it did not fall under the requisites for registering an adverse claim, the same
might be duly annotated in the title as recognition of the existence of a legal
easement of subjacent and lateral support. The purpose of the annotation was to
prevent petitioner from making injurious excavations on the subject embankment
as to deprive the residential house and lot of respondent of its natural
support and cause it to collapse. Respondent only asked that petitioner respect
the legal easement already existing thereon.[16]
On
June 15, 2007, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. However, the CA
denied the same in a Resolution[17]
dated July 14, 2008.
Hence,
this petition.
The
issue in this case is whether the easement of lateral and subjacent support
exists on the subject adjacent properties and, if it does, whether the same may
be annotated at the back of the title of the servient estate.
Article
437 of the Civil Code provides that the owner of a parcel of land is the owner
of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any
works, or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper.
However, such right of the owner is not absolute and is subject to the
following limitations: (1) servitudes or easements,[18] (2) special laws,[19] (3) ordinances,[20] (4) reasonable
requirements of aerial navigation,[21]
and (5) rights of third persons.[22]
Respondent
filed before the RTC an affidavit of adverse claim, the pertinent portions of
which read:
5. That our adverse claim consists of rights
of legal or compulsory easement of lateral and subjacent support (under the
Civil Code) over a portion of the above-described property of owner Margarita
F. Castro, that is, covering the lengthwise or horizontal land
support/embankment area of sixty-five (65) square meters, more or less.
6.
That said registered owner has attempted to destroy and/or remove portions of
the existing lateral/subjacent land and cement supports adjoining the said two
properties. In fact, a portion of the easement was already destroyed/removed,
to the continuing prejudice of herein adverse claimant, and that a formal
complaint against said registered owner was filed by the herein adverse
claimant before the Office of the Barangay Chairman of Talon V, Las Piñas City
and the same proved futile.[23]
Respondent’s
assertion that he has an adverse claim over the 65 sq.m. property of petitioner
is misplaced since he does not have a claim over the ownership of the land. The
annotation of an adverse claim over registered land under Section 70 of
Presidential Decree 1529[24] requires a claim on the title of the disputed
land. Annotation is done to apprise third persons that there is a controversy
over the ownership of the land and to preserve and protect the right of the
adverse claimant during the pendency of the controversy. It is a notice to
third persons that any transaction regarding the disputed land is subject to
the outcome of the dispute.[25]
In
reality, what respondent is claiming is a judicial recognition of the existence
of the easement of subjacent and lateral support over the 65 sq. m. portion of
petitioner’s property covering the land support/embankment area. His reason for
the annotation is only to prevent petitioner from removing the embankment or
from digging on the property for fear of soil erosion that might weaken the
foundation of the rear portion of his property which is adjacent to the
property of petitioner.
An
easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the
benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner.[26]
There are two kinds of easements according to source. An easement is
established either by law or by will of the owners.[27]
The courts cannot impose or constitute any servitude where none existed. They
can only declare its existence if in reality it exists by law or by the will of
the owners. There are therefore no judicial easements.[28]
Article
684 of the Civil Code provides that no proprietor shall make such excavations
upon his land as to deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral
or subjacent support. An owner, by virtue of his surface right, may make
excavations on his land, but his right is subject to the limitation that he
shall not deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or
subjacent support. Between two adjacent landowners, each has an absolute
property right to have his land laterally supported by the soil of his neighbor,
and if either, in excavating on his own premises, he so disturbs the lateral
support of his neighbor’s land as to cause it, or, in its natural state, by the
pressure of its own weight, to fall away or slide from its position, the one so
excavating is liable.[29]
In
the instant case, an easement of subjacent and lateral support exists in favor
of respondent. It was established that
the properties of petitioner and respondent adjoin each other. The residential
house and lot of respondent is located on an elevated plateau of fifteen (15)
feet above the level of petitioner’s property. The embankment and the riprapped
stones have been in existence even before petitioner became the owner of the
property. It was proven that petitioner has been making excavations and
diggings on the subject embankment and, unless restrained, the continued excavation
of the embankment could cause the foundation of the rear portion of the house
of respondent to collapse, resulting in the destruction of a huge part of the
family dwelling.[30]
We
sustain the CA in declaring that a permanent injunction on the part of
petitioner from making injurious excavations is necessary in order to protect
the interest of respondent. However, an annotation of the existence of the
subjacent and lateral support is no longer necessary. It exists whether or not
it is annotated or registered in the registry of property. A judicial
recognition of the same already binds the property and the owner of the same,
including her successors-in-interest. Otherwise, every adjoining landowner
would come to court or have the easement of subjacent and lateral support
registered in order for it to be recognized and respected.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the Decision dated May 25, 2007 and the Resolution dated July 14, 2008 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 83973 are hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that the annotation at the back of
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-36071, recognizing the existence of the
legal easement of subjacent and lateral support constituted on the lengthwise
or horizontal land support/embankment area of sixty-five (65) square meters,
more or less, of the property of petitioner Margarita F. Castro, is hereby
ordered removed.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate Justices Jose C.
Reyes, Jr. and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring; rollo, pp. 68-79.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Penned by Judge Erlinda
Nicolas-Alvaro, Regional Trial Court, Branch 198, Las
[12]
[13]
[14] Supra note 1.
[15]
[16]
[17] Supra note 2.
[18] CIVIL CODE, Art. 437.
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] CIVIL CODE, Art. 431.
[23] Rollo, p. 131.
[24] Section
70 of Presidential Decree 1529 provides:
Section 70. Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or
interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent
to the date of the original registration, may, if no other provision is made in
this Decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth
fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a
reference to the number of the certificate of title of the registered owner,
the name of the registered owner, and a description of the land in which the
right or interest is claimed.
The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall
state the adverse claimant's residence, and a place at which all notices may be
served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to registration as an adverse
claim on the certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be effective for a
period of thirty days from the date of registration. After the lapse of said
period, the annotation of adverse claim may be canceled upon filing of a
verified petition therefor by the party in interest: Provided, however, that
after cancellation, no second adverse claim based on the same ground shall be
registered by the same claimant.
Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party
in interest may file a petition in the Court of First Instance where the land
is situated for the cancellation of the adverse claim, and the court shall
grant a speedy hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim,
and shall render judgment as may be just and equitable. If the adverse claim is
adjudged to be invalid, the registration thereof shall be ordered canceled. If,
in any case, the court, after notice and hearing, shall find that the adverse
claim thus registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant in an amount not
less than one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, in its
discretion. Before the lapse of thirty days, the claimant may withdraw his
adverse claim by filing with the Register of Deeds a sworn petition to that
effect.
[25] Arrazola v. Bernas, 175 Phil. 452, 456-457 (1978).
[26] CIVIL CODE, Art. 613.
[27] CIVIL CODE, Art. 619.
[28] De
[29]
[30] Rollo, pp. 76-77.