Primary Holding

The owner of the servient estate retains ownership of the portion of land burdened by a road right of way easement and may use it, provided such use does not hinder the easement's purpose. The phrase "with existing Right of Way" in a title doesn't automatically grant the dominant estate ownership of the easement area.

Background

The dispute arose between owners of subdivided lots originally part of a larger property. Spouses Mercader and Spouses Bardilas owned adjacent lots, with Spouses Bardilas' lot being burdened by a right of way for the benefit of Spouses Mercader's lot and others to access Clarita Village. A fence erected by the Clarita Village Association restricted the original exit of the right of way, leading to conflicts about encroachment and the extent of rights over the easement.

Facts

• 1. Arsenia Fernandez originally owned Lot No. 5808-F.
• 2. Lot No. 5808-F was subdivided into several lots including Lot No. 5808-F-1 (Mercader children), Lot No. 5808-F-2-A (Spouses Mercader), Lot No. 5808-F-2-B (Spouses Bardilas), and Lot No. 5808-F-3 (Spouses Bardilas).
• 3. Lot No. 5808-F-2-B (Spouses Bardilas) was registered with an annotation of a 3-meter wide right of way.
• 4. Lot No. 5808-F-2-A (Spouses Mercader) was registered with the phrase "with existing Right of Way (3.00 meters wide)" in its technical description, referring to the adjacent Lot No. 5808-F-2-B.
• 5. Spouses Mercader built a house and fence that encroached on a portion of the right of way.
• 6. Clarita Village Association erected a fence closing the original exit of the right of way, causing inconvenience to Spouses Bardilas.
• 7. Discussions and meetings ensued, including agreements about an iron gate, but disagreements persisted regarding the ownership and use of the right of way.
• 8. Spouses Mercader claimed the easement was extinguished due to non-user and merger of rights, and that they owned the portion of the right of way due to the technical description in their title.
• 9. Spouses Bardilas asserted their ownership of the servient estate and the right of way, demanding payment for the encroached portion or its demolition.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The phrase "with existing Right of Way (3.00 meters wide)" in their title signifies their equal entitlement to the road right of way and ownership of a portion of it.
• 2. The easement of right of way was extinguished due to non-user and merger of the dominant and servient estates' rights.
• 3. They retained ownership of the portion of the property where the easement was established.
• 4. The award of attorney’s fees by the CA was improper.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. They owned Lot No. 5808-F-2-B which is the servient estate burdened by the right of way, and therefore own the road right of way itself.
• 2. The technical description in Spouses Mercader's title only refers to the location of the right of way within their (Bardilas') property, not ownership for Mercaders.
• 3. Spouses Mercader encroached upon their property and should either pay for the land encroached upon or demolish the encroaching structures.
• 4. The award of attorney's fees was justified.

Issues

• 1. Whether Spouses Mercader acquired ownership of a portion of the road right of way due to the phrase "with existing Right of Way" in their title.
• 2. Whether the easement of right of way had been extinguished.
• 3. Whether the award of attorney's fees to Spouses Bardilas was proper.

Ruling

• 1. Whether Spouses Mercader acquired ownership of a portion of the road right of way due to the phrase "with existing Right of Way" in their title.
• 2. Whether the easement of right of way had been extinguished.
• 3. Whether the award of attorney's fees to Spouses Bardilas was proper.

Doctrines

• 1. Ownership of Servient Estate in Easements: The owner of the servient estate retains ownership of the portion where the easement is established and can use it in a way that does not affect the easement's exercise.
• 2. Discontinuous Apparent Easement: Road right of way is a discontinuous apparent easement and can only be acquired by title.
• 3. Torrens System and Certificate of Title: A certificate of title is evidence of ownership of the property described, subject to noted encumbrances and legal limitations. It is generally conclusive and obviates the need for further inquiry.
• 4. Requisites of Easement: Easements require two distinct estates, dominant and servient, belonging to different owners. An easement is a real right giving an incorporeal interest without granting title to the land.
• 5. Attributes of Ownership: Owners have the rights of jus utendi, jus fruendi, jus abutendi, jus disponendi, and jus vindicandi over their property.
• 6. Attorney's Fees (Article 2208 of the Civil Code): Attorney's fees as damages are exceptional and require factual, legal, and equitable justification. They are not awarded as a matter of course, and their grant must be clearly explained by the court.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "The owner of the servient estate retains ownership of the portion on which the easement is established, and may use the same in such manner as not to affect the exercise of the easement."
• 2. "Easement or servitude... is 'a real right constituted on another's property, corporeal and immovable, by virtue of which the owner of the same has to abstain from doing or to allow somebody else to do something on his property for the benefit of another thing or person.'"
• 3. "Acquisition by virtue of title, as used in Art. 622 of the Civil Code, refers to 'the juridical act which gives birth to the easement, such as law, donation, contract, and will of the testator.'"
• 4. "The Torrens system gives the registered owner complete peace of mind, in order that he will be secured in his ownership as long as he has not voluntarily disposed of any right over the covered land."
• 5. "What really defines a piece of land is not the area mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Valdez v. Tabisula: Defined easement or servitude. Used to explain the nature of easement and ownership.
• 2. Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals: Explained that easement grants no title to the land. Used to clarify that easement is an incorporeal right and not ownership.
• 3. Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals, Ronquillo v. Roco, Cuaycong v. Benedicto: Established road right of way as a discontinuous apparent easement. Used to classify the type of easement in question and its mode of acquisition.
• 4. Casimiro Development Corporation v. Renato L. Mateo: Explained the Torrens system and certificate of title. Used to underscore the nature of Torrens title as evidence of ownership and the implications of the technical description.
• 5. Notarte v. Notarte, Heirs of Anastacio Fabela v. Court of Appeals: Emphasized that boundaries, not area, define a piece of land. Used to highlight that the description in the title is defined by boundaries including the right of way.
• 6. Borbajo v. Hidden View Homeowners, Inc.: Reiterated the rights of ownership (jus utendi, etc.). Used to explain the extent of rights retained by the Spouses Bardilas as owners of the servient estate.
• 7. Bernardo v. Court of Appeals: Concerning the award of attorney's fees. Used in arguing against the CA's award of attorney's fees.
• 8. Philippine National Construction Corporation v. APAC Marketing Corporation, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. CA, Benedicto v. Villafores, Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Margarine-Verkaufs-Union, Buan, Car Cool Philippines, Inc. v. Ushio Realty and Development Corporation, The Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary v. Court of Appeals, Refractories Corporation of the Philippines v. Intermediate Appellate Court: All pertaining to the justification required for awarding attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code. Used to argue that the CA’s award of attorney’s fees was improper because it lacked sufficient justification.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Valdez v. Tabisula: Defined easement or servitude. Used to explain the nature of easement and ownership.
• 2. Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals: Explained that easement grants no title to the land. Used to clarify that easement is an incorporeal right and not ownership.
• 3. Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals, Ronquillo v. Roco, Cuaycong v. Benedicto: Established road right of way as a discontinuous apparent easement. Used to classify the type of easement in question and its mode of acquisition.
• 4. Casimiro Development Corporation v. Renato L. Mateo: Explained the Torrens system and certificate of title. Used to underscore the nature of Torrens title as evidence of ownership and the implications of the technical description.
• 5. Notarte v. Notarte, Heirs of Anastacio Fabela v. Court of Appeals: Emphasized that boundaries, not area, define a piece of land. Used to highlight that the description in the title is defined by boundaries including the right of way.
• 6. Borbajo v. Hidden View Homeowners, Inc.: Reiterated the rights of ownership (jus utendi, etc.). Used to explain the extent of rights retained by the Spouses Bardilas as owners of the servient estate.
• 7. Bernardo v. Court of Appeals: Concerning the award of attorney's fees. Used in arguing against the CA's award of attorney's fees.
• 8. Philippine National Construction Corporation v. APAC Marketing Corporation, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. CA, Benedicto v. Villafores, Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Margarine-Verkaufs-Union, Buan, Car Cool Philippines, Inc. v. Ushio Realty and Development Corporation, The Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary v. Court of Appeals, Refractories Corporation of the Philippines v. Intermediate Appellate Court: All pertaining to the justification required for awarding attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code. Used to argue that the CA’s award of attorney’s fees was improper because it lacked sufficient justification.