View full case

SPS. VICTOR VALDEZ v. SPS. FRANCISCO TABISULA

FACTS:

Petitioner-spouses Victor and Jocelyn Valdez bought a 200 square meter portion of land from respondent-spouses Francisco and Caridad Tabisula through a Deed of Absolute Sale. The subject property is part of a 380 square meter parcel of land in San Fernando, La Union. The deed stated that the Vendee-spouses would be provided with a 2 1/2 meter wide road right-of-way on the western side of their lot, but the right-of-way was not included in the sale. Respondents later constructed a concrete wall on the western side of the subject property, prompting petitioners to file a complaint for specific performance with damages. Petitioners claimed that they purchased the property with the assurance of a road right-of-way. Respondents contended that the right-of-way should be taken from the western portion of the subject property, not theirs, and that petitioners already had access to public roads through their neighboring properties. The trial court dismissed the complaint and granted respondents' counterclaim for damages. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling, stating that the deed only conveyed ownership of the subject property and did not grant a definite right of way.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the provision in the Deed of Absolute Sale granting a right of way is a definite grant or a mere reference.

  2. Whether the provision in the Deed of Absolute Sale granting a right of way is valid and enforceable.

  3. Whether the award of moral and exemplary damages is proper.

RULING:

  1. The provision in the Deed of Absolute Sale granting a right of way is a mere reference and not a definite grant. The Court of Appeals ruled that the provision does not constitute a voluntary easement of right of way. The appellate court held that the deed only conveyed ownership of the subject property to the petitioners.

  2. The provision in the Deed of Absolute Sale granting a right of way is not valid and enforceable. The Court of Appeals held that the petitioners are not entitled to a legal or compulsory easement of right of way under Article 649 of the Civil Code because they failed to present circumstances justifying their entitlement to it.

  3. The award of moral and exemplary damages is proper. The trial court awarded moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and expenses of litigation to the respondents. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.

PRINCIPLES: