Inexistent

An easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable (servient estate) for the benefit of another immovable (dominant estate) belonging to a different owner. Hence no easement can exist if the two immovable properties belong to the same owner. But if there exists an apparent sign of easement between two estates established and maintained by the owner of both and the owner alienates one of them on which the apparent sign of easement exists, does an easement already exist? This is illustrated and answered in this case.

This case involved four contiguous lots covered by TCTS along Roxas Boulevard owned by a condominium developer (CDC). Sometime in 1975 CDC executed a real estate mortgage over three of the lots covered by TCT Nos. 120311,120312 and 120313 as security for a loan it obtained from PNB to finance the construction of a 21-story condominium on said lots. During the construction, CDC also built a powerhouse (generating set) and two sump pumps on the fourth lot covered by TCT 200760.

After completion, the condominium project was constituted into a corporation known as LTI pursuant to Republic Act 4726 otherwise known as the Condominium Act. However, since CDC failed to pay its loan, PNB foreclosed the mortgage at a sheriff’s auction sale held on January 30, 1985.

As a result, CDC filed a case against PNB before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking nullification of PNB’s foreclosure of its properties. On August 31, 1988 the case was settled through a compromise agreement signed by CDC and PNB joined by the National Government through the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) which acquired all of PNB’s rights and titles to or interest in the CDC receivables by virtue of Proclamation 50 and Administrative Order No. 14. Under the Compromise Agreement, CDC assigned in favor of APT its rights title and interest in 7 contiguous lots at the back of LTI with an aggregate area of 1,504 sq. m. free from all liens and encumbrances. Included among the lots assigned was that covered by TCT No. 200760 on which the sump pumps and generator set used by LTI, were built. On September 9, 1988, the RTC rendered a decision approving the compromise agreement.

But that was not the end of the case because on July 5, 1989, it was LTI now which filed a case in the RTC for declaration of the existence of an easement on the lot covered by TCT 200760 adjacent to it. LTI alleged that when CDC constructed the generating set and sump pumps on said lot for the use and benefit of its condominium units and occupants, it was CDC’s intention to have a voluntary easement over the subject property and for it to remain as such even after the property was subsequently transferred to APT. Was LTI correct?

No. When the appurtenances were constructed on the subject property, the said property as well as the lots where the condominium was being erected all belonged to CDC. Therefore no true easement was constituted or existed because under Article 613 of the Civil Code an easement or servitude is imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner.

Article 624 of the Civil Code is controlling as it contemplates a situation where there exists an apparent sign of easement between the two estates established or maintained by the owner of both. Under said article, when the owner of the two properties alienates one of them the entitlement to the easement continues unless there is a contrary agreement or the apparent sign of easement is removed before the execution of the deed.

In this case when the subject property was assigned to APT the apparent sign of easement was not removed. Nevertheless no easement arose or was voluntarily created by the transfer of ownership because CDC committed in the Compromise Agreement that it was transferring, assigning and conveying the subject property free from all liens and encumbrances.

Considering that CDC never intended to transfer said property burdened by the generating set and sump pumps, LTI should remove them from said property. Furthermore since the National Government through APT later succeeded by the Privatization Management Office (PMO), has been deprived of its use and benefit for almost two decades, it is but just and proper that LTI should pay reasonable rent for the portion of the property occupied by the generator and sump pumps (Privatization Management Office vs. Legaspi Towers 300 Inc. G.R. 147957, July 22, 2009).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

E-mail at: [email protected]