CASTRO v. MONSOD, G.R. No. 183719 : February 2, 2011
Nature of the case: Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision dated May 25, 2007 and the Resolution dated July 14, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 83973.
FACTS:
Petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land located on Garnet Street, Manuela Homes, Pamplona, Las Piñas City, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-36071, with an area of one hundred thirty (130) square meters (sq.m.). Respondent, on the other hand, is the owner of the property adjoining the lot of petitioner, located on Lyra Street, Moonwalk Village, Phase 2, Las Piñas City. There is a concrete fence, more or less two (2) meters high, dividing Manuela Homes from Moonwalk Village. Respondent filed an adverse claim against sixty-five (65) sq.m. of the property of petitioner covered by TCT No. T-36071, asserting existing legal easement of lateral and subjacent support at the rear portion of his estate to prevent the property from collapsing, since his property is located at an elevated plateau of fifteen (15) feet, more or less, above the level of petitioner’s property.
The petitioner filed a complaint for damages and a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction, asking for the cancellation of an annotation of an adverse claim on their property. The trial court denied the annotation but on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ordered for the annotation to be retained, but not as an adverse claim, but as a recognition of the legal easement of subjacent and lateral support of the petitioner's property.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the easement of lateral and subjacent support exists on the subject adjacent properties and, if it does, whether the same may be annotated at the back of the title of the servient estate. - YES
HELD:
The CA's decision was affirmed with modification.
YES. In reality, what respondent is claiming is a judicial recognition of the existence of the easement of subjacent and lateral support over the 65 sq. m. portion of petitioners property covering the land support/embankment area. His reason for the annotation is only to prevent petitioner from removing the embankment or from digging on the property for fear of soil erosion that might weaken the foundation of the rear portion of his property which is adjacent to the property of petitioner.
An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner. There are two kinds of easements according to source. An easement is established either by law or by will of the owners. The courts cannot impose or constitute any servitude where none existed. They can only declare its existence if in reality it exists by law or by the will of the owners. There are therefore no judicial easements.
Article 684 of the Civil Code provides that no proprietor shall make such excavations upon his land as to deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support. An owner, by virtue of his surface right, may make excavations on his land, but his right is subject to the limitation that he shall not deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support. Between two adjacent landowners, each has an absolute property right to have his land laterally supported by the soil of his neighbor, and if either, in excavating on his own premises, he so disturbs the lateral support of his neighbors land as to cause it, or, in its natural state, by the pressure of its own weight, to fall away or slide from its position, the one so excavating is liable.
In the instant case, an easement of subjacent and lateral support exists in favor of respondent. It was established that the properties of petitioner and respondent adjoin each other. The residential house and lot of respondent is located on an elevated plateau of fifteen (15) feet above the level of petitioners property. The embankment and the riprapped stones have been in existence even before petitioner became the owner of the property.
The Supreme Court sustain the CA in declaring that a permanent injunction on the part of petitioner from making injurious excavations is necessary in order to protect the interest of respondent. However, an annotation of the existence of the subjacent and lateral support is no longer necessary. It exists whether or not it is annotated or registered in the registry of property. A judicial recognition of the same already binds the property and the owner of the same, including her successors-in-interest. Otherwise, every adjoining landowner would come to court or have the easement of subjacent and lateral support registered in order for it to be recognized and respected.
WHEREFORE, petition is denied.
Other Doctrines Cited in this case:
Article 437 of the Civil Code provides that the owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works, or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper. However, such right of the owner is not absolute and is subject to the following limitations:
(1) servitudes or easements,
(2) special laws,
(3) ordinances,
(4) reasonable requirements of aerial navigation, and
(5) rights of third persons.