Tañedo vs. Bernad

An apparent easement established or maintained by the owner of two estates continues actively and passively by operation of law upon alienation of either estate, unless the contrary is provided in the conveyance or the sign is removed before the deed, since alienation to different owners is not among the exclusive grounds for extinguishment of easements. Dismissal for failure to state a cause of action was therefore improper where the admitted promise to sell could support damages and the pleaded drainage use could support continuation of the servitude.

Antonio Cardenas owned two contiguous parcels in Cebu City inherited from Lourdes Cardenas, known as Lot 7501-A with an area of 140 square meters and Lot 7501-B with an area of 612 square meters. An apartment building stood on Lot 7501-A, with a small portion thereof encroaching on Lot 7501-B, while Lot 7501-B contained a four-door apartment, a two-storey house, a bodega, and a septic tank for the common use of occupants of both lots. The governing framework invoked for the ensuing dispute included legal redemption under Article 1622 and the Civil Code provisions on extinguishment and continuation of easements.

Antonio Cardenas owned Lot 7501-A and the adjacent Lot 7501-B in Cebu City. On Lot 7501-A stood an apartment building, a small portion of which also stood on Lot 7501-B, while the improvements on Lot 7501-B consisted of one four-door apartment of concrete and strong materials, one two-storey house of strong materials, a bodega of strong materials, and a septic tank for the common use of the occupants of both lots.

On 5 February 1982, Cardenas sold Lot 7501-A, with an area of 140 square meters, to Eduardo C. Tañedo. On that same day, Cardenas also mortgaged Lot 7501-B, with an area of 612 square meters, to Tañedo as security for a P10,000.00 loan. Cardenas further agreed to sell Lot 7501-B only to Tañedo should he decide to sell it, because the septic tank on Lot 7501-B serviced Lot 7501-A and part of Tañedo's apartment stood on Lot 7501-B. This was confirmed in a letter dated 26 February 1982 in which Cardenas asked Tañedo not to deduct the P10,000.00 mortgage loan from the purchase price of Lot 7501-A because, as previously agreed, he would sell Lot 7501-B to Tañedo.

Thereafter, Cardenas sold Lot 7501-B to Romeo and Pacita Sim by Deed of Sale dated 23 July 1982, notarized by Jorge S. Omega and entered as Doc. No. 462, Page No. 94, Book No. 11, Series of 1982. According to Tañedo, the sale was made surreptitiously despite the written agreement to sell the lot to him. Cardenas, for his part, admitted the written agreement but alleged that he was required to execute the deed in favor of the Sims only as security for personal loans and other indebtedness, never as a conveyance to transfer ownership. The Sims, on the other hand, insisted that the sale to them was absolute and that they were absolute owners.

Upon learning of the sale, Tañedo offered to redeem the property from Romeo Sim, but the latter refused. Instead, Romeo Sim blocked the sewage pipe connecting Tañedo's building on Lot 7501-A to the septic tank on Lot 7501-B and asked Tañedo to remove that portion of his building encroaching on Lot 7501-B. Because no redemption followed, Tañedo invoked Article 1622 of the Civil Code and filed Civil Case No. CEB-994 for legal redemption and damages, alleging breach of the written promise to sell, moral damages in the form of mental anguish, sleepless nights and mental torture, plus litigation expenses and P10,000.00 attorney's fees, with a total prayer of P50,000.00 for moral damages, litigation expenses and attorney's fees.

The trial court dismissed the complaint and cross-claim on motion for lack of cause of action. In doing so, it found that Tañedo's right to continue using the septic tank on Lot 7501-B ceased upon subdivision of the land and its subsequent sale to different owners without the same interest.

• Legal Redemption: Petitioner maintained that he was entitled to redeem under Art. 1622 of the Civil Code, seeking to purchase at least that small portion of Lot 7501-B occupied by his apartment building after the Sims told him to remove the encroaching portion.
• Breach of Promise to Sell and Damages: Petitioner argued that the Spouses Cardenas breached their written agreement to sell the adjacent Lot 7501-B to him by selling it to the Spouses Sim, entitling him to moral damages, litigation expenses, and attorney's fees in the amount prayed for.
• Continued Use of Septic Tank and Drainage: Petitioner asserted a continuing right to use the septic tank and drain pipe on Lot 7501-B servicing his building on Lot 7501-A, which the Sims impaired by blocking the sewage pipe.

• No Right of Redemption Due to Disparity in Area: Respondent Spouses Sim countered that they are absolute owners of Lot 7501-B and that Tañedo has no right to redeem under Art. 1622 because the land sought to be redeemed, with an area of 612 square meters, is much bigger than the land owned by Tañedo.
• Absolute Sale vs. Equitable Mortgage: Respondent Cardenas admitted the agreement to sell Lot 7501-B to Tañedo but claimed by cross-claim that the deed executed in favor of the Sims was intended only as an equitable mortgage to secure petty loans, while the Sims insisted the sale to them was absolute.
• Lack of Cause of Action: Respondent Spouses Sim argued that both the complaint and the cross-claim should be dismissed for lack of cause of action.

• Sufficiency of Cause of Action: Whether the complaint and cross-claim were properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
• Legal Redemption: Whether petitioner may redeem Lot 7501-B or the portion thereof occupied by his building under Art. 1622 of the Civil Code.
• Breach of Promise to Sell: Whether petitioner may recover damages for breach of the written promise to sell Lot 7501-B to him.
• Extinguishment and Continuation of Easement: Whether alienation of the dominant and servient estates to different owners extinguished the drainage and septic tank easement servicing Lot 7501-A.

• Sufficiency of Cause of Action: No. Dismissal was precipitate because insufficiency must appear on the face of the complaint, with hypothetically admitted facts tested against whether a valid judgment could be rendered under the prayer.
• Legal Redemption: No, as to the entire Lot 7501-B, which at 612 square meters is much bigger area-wise than petitioner's lot, but whether redemption of only the small occupied portion is possible required pre-trial or trial on the merits.
• Breach of Promise to Sell: Yes, triable. The admitted written promise, appearing to be for valuable consideration, required trial to determine breach and the amount of damages suffered.
• Extinguishment and Continuation of Easement: No, not extinguished. Alienation to different persons is not among the exclusive grounds in Art. 631, and use continues by operation of law under Art. 624 absent contrary provision or removal of the apparent sign.

• Sufficiency of Cause of Action: The controlling test looks only to the ultimate facts alleged, hypothetically admitting their truth in favor of the pleader. Because the complaint alleged a written agreement to sell, a subsequent sale to third persons, refusal of redemption, blocking of the sewage connection, and a demand to remove the encroaching building, a valid judgment for damages or other relief could potentially be rendered under the prayer, so the case could not be cut short on motion alone.
• Legal Redemption: Redemption of the whole 612-square-meter Lot 7501-B could not be allowed under Art. 1622 when measured against petitioner's much smaller 140-square-meter Lot 7501-A. However, since petitioner limited his claim to the small portion occupied by his apartment after being told to remove the encroachment, possibility and propriety of that partial relief involved factual questions properly resolved only at pre-trial or trial.
• Breach of Promise to Sell: Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the amended complaint expressly pleaded the written agreement to sell Lot 7501-B to petitioner and the sale to the Sims causing moral damages and litigation costs, with a prayer for P50,000.00. Cardenas admitted the written agreement, denying only that the transfer to the Sims was an absolute conveyance, and the promise appeared supported by valuable consideration. Trial was therefore necessary, at the very least, to determine breach and damages.
• Extinguishment and Continuation of Easement: Article 631 enumerates the exclusive modes of extinguishment — merger, ten-year non-user, impossibility of use, expiration or fulfillment of term or condition, renunciation, and agreed redemption — none of which is mere alienation to different owners. Under Article 624, an apparent sign of easement established or maintained by the owner of both estates is deemed title for its active and passive continuance upon alienation of either estate, unless the contrary is stipulated or the sign is removed before the deed. Here, no abolition was stated in the sale of Lot 7501-A to Tañedo and use of the drain pipe and septic tank was not stopped before that sale, so the servitude continued and the new owners of Lot 7501-B could not impair its use.

• Test of sufficiency of cause of action on motion to dismiss — Insufficiency must appear on the face of the complaint; hypothetically admitting the ultimate facts alleged, the court asks whether a valid judgment can be rendered in accordance with the prayer, with the movant deemed to admit the truth of the averments for that purpose. Applied to reverse dismissal because the pleaded agreement, sale to third parties, and injury could sustain judgment after trial.
• Legal redemption under Article 1622, Civil Code — Redemption of an adjacent urban lot is delimited by the statutory conditions, including relative size. Applied to deny redemption of the entire 612-square-meter Lot 7501-B as against the much smaller lot owned by petitioner, while leaving open at trial whether the small occupied portion could be acquired.
• Exclusive grounds for extinguishment of easements — Article 631 limits extinguishment to merger of dominant and servient ownership, ten-year non-user, supervening impossibility of use with stated revival and prescription rules, expiration or fulfillment of temporary or conditional terms, renunciation by the dominant owner, and agreed redemption. Applied to reject the view that subdivision and sale to different owners by itself ends the easement.
• Continuation of apparent easement upon alienation — Under Article 624, an apparent sign of easement established or maintained by the owner of both estates serves as title for its continued active and passive existence when either estate is alienated or common property is divided, unless the division titles provide otherwise or the sign is removed before execution. Applied to sustain Tañedo's continued drainage and septic tank use, following Article 629 on drainage, where no contrary stipulation or prior removal was shown.

• "The settled rule where dismissal of an action is sought on the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action is, that the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint." — States the threshold for dismissal on the pleadings and why the orders were deemed precipitate.
• "And the test of the sufficiency of the ultimate facts alleged in the complaint to constitute a cause of action, is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint." — Defines the hypothetically-admitted-facts test applied to sustain the need for trial.
• "As can be seen from the above provisions, the alienation of the dominant and servient estates to different persons is not one of the grounds for the extinguishment of an easement." — States the core easement ratio rejecting extinguishment by mere subdivision and sale.
• "On the contrary, use of the easement is continued by operation of law." — States the consequence under Article 624 preserving the drainage servitude for the dominant estate.

• Azur vs. Provincial Board, G.R. No. L-22333, February 27, 1969, 27 SCRA 50 — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that insufficiency of cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint and for the hypothetically-admitted-facts test of sufficiency.

• Article 1622, Civil Code — Governs legal redemption of adjacent urban land; applied to hold that petitioner could not redeem the entire much larger Lot 7501-B, while leaving partial redemption of the occupied portion for determination at trial.
• Article 631, Civil Code — Enumerates the exclusive grounds for extinguishment of easements; applied to hold that alienation of dominant and servient estates to different owners does not extinguish the easement.
• Article 624, Civil Code — Provides that an apparent sign of easement established or maintained by the owner of both estates continues actively and passively upon alienation unless otherwise stipulated or removed before the deed; applied to preserve use of the drain pipe and septic tank.
• Article 629, Civil Code — Cited in support of the continued drainage servitude in favor of the dominant estate against impairment by the new servient owners.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.