Scribd
Upload
64 views2 pages

UCDC v. Chung G.R. No. 173252, July 17, 2009 Quisumbing, J.

This case involves a petition to cancel an encumbrance of a voluntary easement of right of way on a parcel of land. The Supreme Court denied the petition. [1] The petitioner acknowledged that a voluntary easement of right of way existed in favor of the respondents. [2] Voluntary easements like this one cannot be cancelled just because the dominant estate now has adequate access, unlike legal or compulsory easements. [3] A voluntary easement can only be extinguished by mutual agreement or renunciation, not by a change in necessity, and it is effective for the parties, heirs, and assigns.

Uploaded by

Arrianne Obias
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
64 views2 pages

UCDC v. Chung G.R. No. 173252, July 17, 2009 Quisumbing, J.

This case involves a petition to cancel an encumbrance of a voluntary easement of right of way on a parcel of land. The Supreme Court denied the petition. [1] The petitioner acknowledged that a voluntary easement of right of way existed in favor of the respondents. [2] Voluntary easements like this one cannot be cancelled just because the dominant estate now has adequate access, unlike legal or compulsory easements. [3] A voluntary easement can only be extinguished by mutual agreement or renunciation, not by a change in necessity, and it is effective for the parties, heirs, and assigns.

Uploaded by

Arrianne Obias
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

UCDC v.

Chung
G.R. No. 173252, July 17, 2009
QUISUMBING, J.:

Facts of the case

Petitioner Unisource Commercial and Development Corporation (Unisource) is the


registered owner of a parcel of land which its certificate of title contains a memorandum of
encumbrance of a voluntary easement which has been carried over from the OCT of Encarnacion
S. Sandico. As Sandico’s property was transferred to several owners, the memorandum of
encumbrance of a voluntary easement in favor of Francisco M. Hidalgo was consistently
annotated at the back of every title covering Sandico’s property until its transfer to petitioner’s
favor. On the other hand, Hidalgo’s property was eventually transferred to respondents Joseph
Chung, Kiat Chung and Cleto Chung under TCT No. 121488.7

The petitioner filed a Petition to Cancel the Encumbrance of Voluntary Easement of


Right of Way on the ground that the dominant estate (respondents’ lot) has an adequate access to
a public road.

Issue

WO the petition should be granted.

Ruling

No, the petition was DENIED.

As defined, an easement is a real right on another’s property, corporeal and immovable,


whereby the owner of the latter must refrain from doing or allowing somebody else to do or
something to be done on his property, for the benefit of another person or tenement. Easements
are established either by law or by the will of the owner. The former are called legal, and the
latter, voluntary easements.

In this case, petitioner itself admitted that a voluntary easement of right of way exists in
favor of respondents Chung. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim that what exists is a legal
easement and that the same should be cancelled since the dominant estate is not an enclosed
estate as it has an adequate access to a public road. It has been held that the opening of an
adequate outlet to a highway can extinguish only legal or compulsory easements, not
voluntary easements like in the case at bar.

The fact that an easement by grant may have also qualified as an easement of necessity
does not detract from its permanency as a property right, which survives the termination of the
necessity. A voluntary easement of right of way, like any other contract, could be extinguished

1
only by mutual agreement or by renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate. As such, it
is generally effective between the parties, their heirs and assigns, except in case where the rights
and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or
by provision of law.

You might also like