SOLID MANILA BIO HONG TRADING CO. V CA G.R. No. 90596

FACTS: Petitioner Corporation, is the owner of a parcel of land located in Ermita, Manila, The private respondent's (de Guzman) title came from a prior owner, and in their deed of sale, the parties thereto reserved as an easement of way: a portion thereof measuring NINE HUNDRED FOURTEEN SQUARE METERS, more or less, had been converted into a private alley for the benefit of neighboring estates, this being duly annotated at the back of the covering transfer Certificate of title per regulations of the Office of the City Engineer of Manila and that the three meterwide portion of said parcel along the Pasig River, with an area of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE (179) SQUARE METERS, more or less, had actually been expropriated by the City Government, and developed pursuant to the beautification drive of the Metro Manila Governor. (p. 3, Record).

The petitioner claims that ever since, it had (as well as other residents of neighboring estates) made use of the above private alley and maintained and contributed to its upkeep, until sometime in 1983, when, and over its protests, the private respondent constructed steel gates that precluded unhampered use.

ISSUE/ HELD: Whether or not an easement exists on the property even after the property was sold. AFFIRMATIVE. Easement cannot be separated from the tenement and maintain an independent existence.

RATIO DICIDENDI:

It is true that the sale did include the alley. On this score, the Court rejects the petitioner's contention that the deed of sale “excluded” it, because as a mere right-of-way, it cannot be separated from the tenement and maintains an independent existence. Thus:

Art. 617. Easements are inseparable from the estate to which they actively or passively belong.

The fact, however, that the alley in question, as an easement, is inseparable from the main lot is no argument to defeat the petitioner's claims, because as an easement precisely, it operates as a limitation on the title of the owner of the servient estate, specifically, his right to use (jus utendi).

Hence, and so we reiterate, albeit the private respondent did acquire ownership over the property –– including the disputed alley –– as a result of the conveyance, it did not acquire the right to close that alley or otherwise put up obstructions thereon and thus prevent the public from using it, because as a servitude, the alley is supposed to be open to the public.

The Court is furthermore of the opinion, contrary to that of the Court of Appeals, that no genuine merger took place as a consequence of the sale in favor of the private respondent corporation. According to the Civil Code, a merger exists when ownership of the dominant and servient estates is consolidated in the same person. ¹⁵ Merger then, as can be seen, requires full ownership of both estates.

In the case at bar, the defense of merger is, clearly, not a valid defense, indeed, a sham one, because as we said, merger is not possible, and secondly, the sale unequivocally preserved the existing easement. In other words, the answer does not, in reality, tender any genuine issue on a material fact and cannot militate against the petitioner's clear cause of action.