Fernandez vs. Delfin

When a single owner establishes an apparent sign of easement between two contiguous properties, the existence of such sign is deemed a title for the easement upon alienation of either property, unless the deed of conveyance provides to the contrary or the sign is removed before the deed's execution, pursuant to Article 624 of the Civil Code.

The Fernandez Spouses owned five contiguous parcels of land in Bonuan Gueset, Dagupan City. Two front properties provided the sole access to the national highway for three back properties. In 1980, they annotated on the transfer certificates of title of the front properties an easement of right of way (one meter wide) in favor of the back properties. Subsequently, they mortgaged the front properties to the Philippine National Bank, which foreclosed and acquired the properties upon default. The Delfin Spouses later purchased the front properties from the bank and were issued new transfer certificates of title bearing the same annotations.

• Ownership and Annotation: The Fernandez Spouses owned five contiguous parcels in Dagupan City. On October 6, 1980, they annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 41449 and 41450 (front properties) an easement of right of way (one meter wide) over these properties in favor of the back properties covered by TCT Nos. 41451, 41452, and 41453.
• Foreclosure and Transfer: The Fernandez Spouses mortgaged the front properties to the Philippine National Bank. Upon failure to pay, the bank foreclosed and acquired the properties. The Delfin Spouses purchased the front properties from the bank and were issued TCT Nos. 92271 and 92272, which bore the same annotations regarding the easement.
• Refusal and Enclosure: The Delfin Spouses refused to recognize the annotated easement and enclosed the properties, preventing the Fernandez Spouses from accessing the national highway through the front properties.
• Trial Court Proceedings: During trial, the Delfin Spouses undertook to allocate one meter of the northeastern portion as a right of way provided they would be indemnified, but no final agreement was reached. The Regional Trial Court constituted an easement on the west side of all five properties in favor of the Fernandez Spouses, finding no basis to indemnify the Delfin Spouses.
• Appellate Proceedings: The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that no easement was constituted because Article 613 requires two distinct owners, and the annotation was made when the Fernandez Spouses owned all properties. It also held that the offer to grant a right of way was conditional upon indemnity, which the Fernandez Spouses rejected.

• Applicability of Article 624: Petitioners maintained that Article 624 applies because they previously owned both the dominant and servient estates, established an apparent sign of easement through annotation and actual use, and the annotations were never erased or removed. They argued that an owner may impose easements on adjoining properties pursuant to Article 688 of the Civil Code.
• No Indemnity Required: Petitioners argued that no indemnity is due because the easement was annotated on the titles, and respondents purchased the properties with full knowledge of the encumbrance, as evidenced by the annotations on their own titles. Actual notice, they contended, is as binding as registration.

• Invalid Constitution: Respondents countered that no valid easement was constituted under Article 613 because the annotation was made when there was only one owner, and an easement cannot exist when the dominant and servient estates belong to the same person. They maintained that the offer to grant a right of way was conditional upon indemnity, which petitioners rejected, thus no voluntary easement existed under Article 649.
• Annotations as Mere Notice: Respondents argued that the annotations served only to notify third parties and were not modes of acquiring an easement. They contended that the case should not be compared to easements of light and view or drainage, as the facts were dissimilar.

• Validity of Easement under Article 624: Whether a valid easement of right of way was constituted on the front properties under Article 624 of the Civil Code, notwithstanding that the annotations were made when the Fernandez Spouses owned both dominant and servient estates.

• Application of Article 624: An easement of right of way was validly constituted. Article 624 applies when one person owns two estates and establishes an apparent sign of easement between them; upon alienation of either estate, the existence of the apparent sign serves as a title for the easement to continue actively and passively, unless the contrary is provided in the deed of conveyance or the sign is removed before execution. The annotation on the titles and the actual use of the path constituted apparent signs of easement established by the owner of both.
• Effect of Transfer to PNB and Delfins: When the front properties were transferred to the Philippine National Bank, and subsequently to the Delfin Spouses, the apparent signs served as title. No showing was made that the bank stipulated against the easement or that the signs were removed before execution of the deeds.
• Binding Effect on Respondents: Respondents were aware of the easement as it was annotated on the titles issued to them. They are presumed to have been informed that petitioners used a portion of the front properties to access the national highway, and are thus bound by the easement.

• Article 624, Civil Code (Apparent Sign as Title): When a single owner establishes an apparent sign of easement between two estates, such sign shall be considered, upon alienation of either estate, as a title for the easement to continue, unless (1) the contrary is provided in the title of conveyance of either of them, or (2) the sign is removed before the execution of the deed. This doctrine is based on the principle that while no true easement exists when one person owns both estates (nemini sua res servit), the sign creates an implied contract that the easement shall be constituted upon division of ownership.
• Discontinuous Easements: Easements of right of way are discontinuous (used at intervals and depending on the act of man) and, pursuant to Article 622, may be acquired only by virtue of a title.
• Apparent Easements: Easements are apparent if visible signs or physical indications exist (such as a road, path, or window), regardless of whether they are continuous or discontinuous. The classification depends on the presence of physical signs, not the manner of exercise.

• "When one person who owns two properties establishes an apparent sign of an easement between them, this gives rise to a title over an easement when either of the properties is transferred to another person. The exception is if the contrary is provided in the deed of transfer, or if before the deed is executed, the apparent sign is removed."
• "nemini sua res servit" — nobody can have an easement over his own property; thus, the easement is not created until the division of the property when there are two proprietors.
• "The existence of the apparent sign [of easement] equivalent to a title, when nothing to the contrary is said or done by the two owners, is sound and correct, because as it happens in this case, there is an implied contract between them that the easements in question should be constituted."

• Amor v. Florentino, 74 Phil. 403 (1943) — Controlling precedent extensively discussing Article 541 (now 624) of the Spanish Civil Code; held that an apparent sign between two estates established by the owner of both serves as title upon alienation; established the "implied contract" theory.
• Cortes v. Yu-Tibo, 2 Phil. 24 (1903) — Cited in Amor; affirmed that apparent signs serve as title and that acquiescence by the new owner binds them.
• Spouses Garcia v. Santos, G.R. No. 228334 (2019) — Followed; clarified that Article 624 creates a "legal presumption or apparent sign" that serves as title upon division of ownership.
• Heirs of Limense v. Vda. de Ramos, 619 Phil. 592 (2009) — Followed; held that successors-in-interest are bound by an easement even without annotation if they had actual knowledge, and that actual notice is as binding as registration.
• Bogo-Medellin Milling Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 455 Phil. 285 (2003) — Cited for the distinction between continuous and discontinuous easements; established that right of way is discontinuous.

• Article 624, Civil Code — Provides that the existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates established by the owner of both shall be considered, upon alienation of either, as a title for the easement to continue, unless the contrary is provided in the deed or the sign is removed before execution.
• Article 613, Civil Code — Defines easement as an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner.
• Article 622, Civil Code — Provides that continuous nonapparent and discontinuous easements may be acquired only by virtue of a title.
• Article 688, Civil Code — Grants owners the right to establish easements on their property in the manner and form they deem best, provided they do not contravene laws, public policy, or public order.

Hernando, Inting, Delos Santos, and J. Lopez, JJ.