View full case

LIMENSE v. RITA VDA. DE RAMOS

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land located in Pandacan, Manila. The land was originally owned by Dalmacio Lozada and subdivided into five lots, each donated to his daughters. One of the lots, Lot No. 12-C, was co-owned by Catalina Lozada, Isabel Lozada, and Salud Lozada, and was adjacent to Lot No. 12-D, on which the respondents' predecessor-in-interest constructed a residential building in 1932. In 1969, a transfer certificate of title (TCT No. 96886) was issued in the name of Joaquin Limense, covering the same area as Lot No. 12-C. In 1981, Joaquin Limense obtained a building permit to construct a fence on the boundary line between his property and Lot No. 12-D, but a portion of respondents' building encroached upon his property. Joaquin Limense filed a complaint seeking the removal of the obstruction and damages. Respondents claimed to be the surviving heirs of Francisco Ramos, who was married to Salud Lozada, and argued that Lot No. 12-C served as a right of way or common alley. The RTC dismissed Joaquin Limense's complaint, ruling that an apparent easement of right of way existed in favor of the respondents, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The heirs of Joaquin Limense appealed to the Supreme Court.

The dispute centers on whether the respondents are entitled to an easement of right of way over Lot No. 12-C and whether the plaintiff's title is valid. The Court of Appeals observed that the plaintiff's title had a dubious origin and ruled that Lot No. 12-C was co-owned by both parties. However, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's title is valid and is the best proof of ownership over Lot No. 12-C. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claims regarding defects in the plaintiff's title. The question of the easement of right of way remains to be decided in this case, with the petitioners arguing that the respondents are not entitled to it.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents and petitioners co-owned Lot No. 12-C.

  2. Whether respondents are entitled to an easement of right of way over Lot No. 12-C.

  3. Whether the easement of right of way over Lot No. 12-C is binding on the petitioners, despite the absence of registration of the servitude on their transfer certificate of title.

  4. Whether the respondents were builders in good faith.

  5. Whether the provisions of Article 448 of the Civil Code apply when the co-ownership is terminated by a partition and the house of an erstwhile co-owner encroaches upon a portion pertaining to another co-owner, but the encroachment was in good faith.

  6. Whether the encroachment can be considered a nuisance and be removed at the expense of the builder.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents and petitioners co-owned Lot No. 12-C. TCT No. 96886, at present, is registered exclusively in the name of Joaquin Limense, making him the sole owner of the said lot.

  2. Respondents are entitled to an easement of right of way over Lot No. 12-C. The easement is discontinuous and apparent, as it depends on the acts of respondents and other persons passing through the property. Although TCT No. 96886 does not contain any annotation regarding the easement, Joaquin Limense and his successors-in-interest are aware that Lot No. 12-C has been continuously used as an alley by respondents and residents in the area for a long period of time. The continuous use of the alley grants respondents the right to enjoy the easement.

  3. The Court held that the easement of right of way over Lot No. 12-C is binding on the petitioners, even without registration, because they had actual notice or knowledge of its existence. The Court cited the principle that actual notice or knowledge is as binding as registration. Thus, the petitioners must respect the easement in spite of the fact that their transfer certificates of title do not mention any burden or easement.

  4. The Court found that the respondents' predecessors-in-interest were builders in good faith when they built portions of their house on Lot No. 12-C. The Court emphasized that good faith is always presumed and it is upon the party alleging bad faith to prove it. Since the portions of the house encroached upon Lot No. 12-C, which was part of the 1/3 share allotted to the respondents' predecessors-in-interest by the donor, there was no showing of bad faith. Therefore, the respondents were builders in good faith.

  5. Yes. When the co-ownership is terminated by a partition and it appears that the house of an erstwhile co-owner has encroached upon a portion pertaining to another co-owner, but the encroachment was in good faith, then the provisions of Article 448 of the Civil Code should apply. The owner of the land has the right to appropriate the portion of the house upon payment of indemnity to the builder. Otherwise, the owner may oblige the builder to pay the price of the land occupied by the house. If the price is considerably higher than the value of the portion of the house built thereon, then the builder cannot be obliged to buy the land. The builder shall then pay reasonable rent to the landowner upon such terms and conditions they may agree. In case of disagreement, the trial court shall fix the terms thereof.

  6. No. The encroachment cannot be simply removed at the expense of the builder, even if it may hinder the use of the property of the landowner. This is because the builder built the encroachment in good faith, and the law affords certain rights to the builder under Article 448 of the Civil Code.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court if the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain relevant facts, and if its judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts.

  • The owner of a property has the right to enclose or fence his property, but must respect servitudes constituted thereon.

  • An easement is a real right on another's property, whereby the owner of the latter must refrain from doing or allowing something to be done on his property for the benefit of another person or tenement.

  • Easements may be continuous or discontinuous, and apparent or non-apparent.

  • A discontinuous and apparent easement can be acquired by virtue of a title, even without an annotation specifically stating the existence of the easement.

  • Actual notice or knowledge is as binding as registration.

  • Good faith implies honesty of intention, absence of knowledge of any flaw in one's title, and absence of intention to defraud or seek an unconscionable advantage.

  • Good faith is always presumed, and the burden of proof lies on the party claiming bad faith.

  • Article 448 of the Civil Code applies when the co-ownership is terminated by a partition and a house of an erstwhile co-owner encroaches upon a portion pertaining to another co-owner, but the encroachment was in good faith.

  • The owner of the land has the option to appropriate the portion of the house upon payment of indemnity to the builder, or to oblige the builder to pay the price of the land. If the price is considerably higher, the builder cannot be obliged to buy the land and shall pay reasonable rent to the landowner.

  • The encroachment, even if it may be considered a nuisance, cannot be removed at the expense of the builder if the encroachment was made in good faith.