Primary Holding

The easement of right-of-way in favor of the public was validly constituted and was not extinguished by merger when Bio Hong Trading Co., Inc. acquired the property; therefore, Bio Hong must respect and maintain the easement, removing any obstructions.

Background

Solid Manila Corporation claimed a right-of-way over a private alley located on property owned by Bio Hong Trading Co., Inc. This alley was established by a prior owner and annotated on Bio Hong's title. Bio Hong constructed steel gates obstructing the alley, leading Solid Manila to file for injunction to remove the gates and enforce the easement.

Facts

• 1. Solid Manila Corporation and Bio Hong Trading Co., Inc. own adjacent properties in Ermita, Manila.
• 2. Bio Hong's title originated from a prior owner who had established a private alley on the property for the benefit of neighboring estates.
• 3. This easement was duly annotated on the Transfer Certificate of Title of Bio Hong's predecessor and subsequently on Bio Hong's title.
• 4. The annotation specified conditions for the alley's use, including that it must remain open, unobstructed, and accessible to the public and the city for utility purposes.
• 5. Solid Manila and other neighboring residents used and maintained the alley.
• 6. In 1983, Bio Hong constructed steel gates across the alley, preventing unhampered use and prompting Solid Manila to file suit.
• 7. A related case (CA-G.R. No. 13421) concerning the cancellation of the annotation of easement on Bio Hong’s title had previously been decided by the Court of Appeals in favor of Solid Manila, ordering the annotation's restoration.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the summary judgment of the trial court.
• 2. The deed of sale to Bio Hong "excluded" the alley, indicating the intent to maintain the easement.
• 3. The easement was validly constituted and annotated on the title.
• 4. Merger did not occur because the easement was for the benefit of the public (a personal servitude), not just for a dominant estate owned by the same person who owned the servient estate.
• 5. The Court of Appeals' prior decision in CA-G.R. No. 13421, which upheld the easement's annotation, constituted the "law of the case."

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Summary judgment was improper because there were issues of fact to be tried.
• 2. The easement was extinguished by merger when Bio Hong acquired ownership of the property, as the owner of the servient estate became the owner of the supposed dominant estate.
• 3. Solid Manila had another adequate outlet.
• 4. Solid Manila did not pay indemnity for the easement.
• 5. Solid Manila did not prove the right-of-way was located at the least prejudicial point to the servient estate.

Issues

• 1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's summary judgment.
• 2. Whether or not the easement of right-of-way was extinguished by merger when Bio Hong acquired the property.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Solid Manila, finding that the Court of Appeals erred.
• 2. The Court held that summary judgment was proper as there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of the easement and Bio Hong's obstruction.
• 3. Merger did not apply because the easement was a personal servitude for the benefit of the public, not a predial servitude requiring distinct dominant and servient estates owned by different parties which could merge.
• 4. The easement was established by the will of the previous owner and duly annotated, making it binding on Bio Hong.
• 5. Bio Hong's act of erecting gates violated the conditions of the easement.
• 6. The Court also invoked the "law of the case" doctrine, citing the Court of Appeals’ prior decision in CA-G.R. No. 13421, which affirmed the validity of the easement annotation.
• 7. Bio Hong was deemed guilty of forum-shopping for initiating the cancellation case while the injunction case was pending.

Doctrines

• 1. Easement (Servitude): A real right on another's property, corporeal and immovable, by virtue of which the owner of the latter has to refrain from doing or to allow that somebody do something on his property, for the benefit of another person or tenement.
• 2. Personal Servitude: An easement established for the benefit of a community or one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong, lacking a dominant tenement in the traditional sense.
• 3. Merger (Confusion): The extinguishment of an easement when the ownership of the dominant and servient estates comes to be vested in the same person. It requires full ownership of both estates and does not apply to personal servitudes.
• 4. Summary Judgment: A procedural device to promptly dispose of cases where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• 5. Law of the Case: Whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of that case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.
• 6. Forum Shopping: The filing of multiple suits in different fora, simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Easements are inseparable from the estate to which they actively or passively belong."
• 2. "Servitudes are merely accessories to the tenements of which they form part."
• 3. "Merger then, as can be seen, requires full ownership of both estates."
• 4. "There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another."

Precedents Cited

• 1. North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. v. Hidalgo (63 Phil. 664): Cited to support the view that a personal servitude is established by the act of the landowner and that a third party can claim its benefits. Justice Laurel's separate opinion in this case, arguing for a contractual basis, was also mentioned.
• 2. Natalia Realty Corporation v. Valley (G.R. Nos. 78290-94, May 23, 1989): Cited as precedent for the propriety of summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of fact.
• 3. Carcon Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 88218, December 19, 1989): Cited as another example where summary judgment was upheld.
• 4. Arradaza v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 50422, February 8, 1989): Cited as another case where summary judgment was approved and for the principle regarding laches.
• 5. Garcia v. Court of Appeals (Nos. 82282-83, November 24, 1988): Cited as a case where summary judgment was allowed, rejecting economic hardship as a defense.
• 6. People v. Pinuila (103 Phil. 992, 999 (1958)): Cited regarding the doctrine of law of the case.
• 7. Villaneuva v. Adre (G.R. No. 80863, April 27, 1989): Cited to define forum shopping.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court: Used as the procedural basis for the petition for review on certiorari.
• 2. Rule 34 of the Rules of Court: Governs summary judgments.
• 3. Article 614, Civil Code: Defines servitudes established for the benefit of a community.
• 4. Article 617, Civil Code: States that easements are inseparable from the estate to which they belong.
• 5. Article 631(1), Civil Code (Implied reference): Relates to the extinguishment of easements, including merger.
• 6. Article 619, Civil Code (cited in relation to North Negros Sugar Co. case): Relates to the establishment of voluntary easements by the will of the owner.