Solid Manila Corporation vs. Bio Hong Trading Co

A personal servitude established for the benefit of the public (or of one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong) is not extinguished by merger under Article 631(1) of the Civil Code because merger requires the consolidation of ownership of both the dominant and servient estates in the same person, which is impossible when there is no dominant estate.

The dispute concerns a private alley in Ermita, Manila, originally constituted by a prior landowner as an easement for the benefit of neighboring estates. The easement was annotated on the certificate of title with specific conditions requiring it to remain open to the public and free from obstructions.

• Filed in RTC: Solid Manila Corporation commenced an action for injunction on December 6, 1984, to compel Bio Hong to remove gates blocking the alley.
• Decision of lower court: The RTC issued a temporary writ of preliminary injunction, then granted Solid Manila's motion for summary judgment on January 19, 1987, making the injunction permanent.
• Appealed to CA: Bio Hong appealed, arguing that the easement was extinguished by merger and that summary judgment was improper.
• Elevated to SC: Solid Manila filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 after the CA reversed the RTC decision.

• Solid Manila Corporation owns a parcel of land in Ermita, Manila (TCT No. 157750).
• Bio Hong Trading Co., Inc. owns an adjacent parcel (TCT No. 128784) purchased from a prior owner.
• The prior owner executed a deed of sale reserving a 914-square-meter portion as a "private alley for the benefit of neighboring estates," with the purchase price reduced from P3,790,440 to P3,503,240 to compensate for the easement.
• An annotation (Entry No. 7712/T-5000) was entered on Bio Hong's title, imposing conditions including: (a) the alley must remain open at all times with no obstructions; (b) the public must be allowed to use it; and (c) the owner must maintain it.
• Solid Manila and other residents used the alley until 1983, when Bio Hong constructed steel gates precluding unhampered use.
• While the injunction suit was pending, Bio Hong filed a separate petition (LRC Case No. 273) to cancel the annotation, which the RTC granted. The CA reversed this in CA-G.R. SP No. 13421, restoring the annotation—a decision affirmed by the SC in G.R. No. 83540 (December 14, 1988).

• The CA erred in reversing the RTC's summary judgment; the defense of merger raised no genuine issue of material fact and was legally untenable.
• The easement was not extinguished by merger because it is a personal servitude benefiting the public, not a real servitude attached to a specific dominant estate.
• The deed of sale explicitly preserved the easement and reduced the price accordingly, evidencing intent to maintain the servitude.
• CA-G.R. SP No. 13421 (restoring the annotation) constitutes the law of the case between the parties and is binding.
• The respondent is guilty of forum shopping for filing the cancellation proceeding (LRC Case No. 273) while the injunction case was pending.

• Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of fact existed regarding the extinguishment of the easement.
• The easement was extinguished by merger because ownership of both the dominant and servient estates was consolidated in Bio Hong when it purchased the property from the prior owner.
• An easement is merely a limitation on ownership that does not impair title; since Bio Hong acquired full title, merger extinguished the easement.
• Solid Manila has another adequate outlet.
• Solid Manila has not paid indemnity for the easement.
• Solid Manila failed to prove the right-of-way lies at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the RTC properly rendered summary judgment under Rule 34.
  • Whether the respondent is guilty of forum shopping.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the easement was extinguished by merger under Article 631(1) of the Civil Code upon the sale of the property to the respondent.

• Procedural:
  • Summary Judgment: The RTC properly rendered summary judgment. Under Rule 34, summary judgment is proper when pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The defense of merger was a sham defense because merger is legally impossible for a personal servitude, and the deed of sale explicitly preserved the easement. No triable issue existed that required a full trial.
  • Forum Shopping: The respondent is guilty of forum shopping. It filed LRC Case No. 273 to cancel the annotation while the injunction suit was pending, seeking a favorable ruling in another forum to defeat the processes in the first. This constitutes forum shopping, punishable by contempt.
• Substantive:
  • Merger: The easement was not extinguished by merger. The servitude is a personal servitude under Article 614 of the Civil Code, established for the benefit of the general public (neighboring estates), not a real servitude for the benefit of a specific dominant tenement. Merger requires consolidation of ownership of both the dominant and servient estates (Art. 631(1)), which is impossible here because a personal servitude has no dominant estate.
  • Continued Existence: The easement remains valid and enforceable. The deed of sale explicitly preserved it, and the price reduction confirmed the parties' intent to maintain the servitude. The annotation remains valid per CA-G.R. SP No. 13421 (the law of the case).
  • Injunction: The injunction was proper. The respondent violated the express conditions of the easement by erecting gates and obstructing public use.

• Personal Servitude (Art. 614, Civil Code) — Servitudes established for the benefit of a community or of one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong. Unlike real servitudes, they do not require a dominant estate; the benefit pertains directly to persons. Applied here to hold that the alley, being for the benefit of neighboring estates (the public), is a personal servitude.
• Merger as Mode of Extinguishment (Art. 631(1), Civil Code) — Merger requires the consolidation of ownership of the dominant and servient estates in the same person. Applied here to hold that because the easement is personal (no dominant estate), merger is legally impossible and cannot extinguish the servitude.
• Summary Judgment (Rule 34, Rules of Court) — Proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. A sham defense—one that is legally impossible or contradicted by documentary evidence—justifies summary judgment.
• Law of the Case — The decision on a former appeal (CA-G.R. SP No. 13421, affirmed in G.R. No. 83540) regarding the validity of the annotation is controlling and binding on subsequent proceedings between the same parties involving the same issues.
• Forum Shopping — Filing multiple suits in different forums to seek a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) or to defeat the processes in another pending action. Filing a cancellation proceeding while an injunction suit is pending constitutes forum shopping.
• Inseparability of Easements (Art. 617, Civil Code) — Easements cannot be alienated or mortgaged separately from the tenement to which they belong. The SC noted that while the alley (as easement) is inseparable from the main lot, this does not prevent it from operating as a limitation on the servient owner's title (jus utendi).

• "Merger then, as can be seen, requires full ownership of both estates."
• "In a personal servitude, there is therefore no 'owner of a dominant tenement' to speak of, and the easement pertains to persons without a dominant estate, in this case, the public at large."
• "Merger, as we said, presupposes the existence of a prior servient-dominant owner relationship, and the termination of that relation leaves the easement of no use."
• "Summary judgments are meant to rid a proceeding of the ritual of a trial where, from existing records, the facts have been established, and trial would be futile."
• "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."

• North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. v. Hidalgo, 63 Phil. 664 (1936) — Cited for the distinction between personal and real servitudes; a personal servitude is established by the mere act of the owner and is not contractual in nature (though Justice Laurel dissented on this point).
• Natalia Realty Corporation v. Valley, G.R. Nos. 78290-94, May 23, 1989 — Cited for the propriety of summary judgment when no genuine issue exists; also cited regarding the imprescriptibility of Torrens titles.
• Carcon Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88218, December 19, 1989 — Cited for upholding summary judgment where the defense of payment was deemed sham for failure to produce receipts.
• Villaneuva v. Adre, G.R. No. 80863, April 27, 1989 — Cited for the definition of forum shopping.
• People v. Pinuila, 103 Phil. 992 (1958) — Cited for the definition of "law of the case."

• Article 614, Civil Code — Defines personal servitudes as those for the benefit of a community or persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong.
• Article 617, Civil Code — Provides that easements are inseparable from the estate to which they actively or passively belong.
• Article 619, Civil Code — Provides that voluntary easements are established by the will of the owner.
• Article 631(1), Civil Code — Lists merger of ownership of the dominant and servient estates as a mode of extinguishing an easement.
• Rule 34, Rules of Court — Governs summary judgments.

N/A (Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concurred without separate opinions).