*Sps. Jesus and Aida Castro v. Sps. Felimon and Lorna Esperanza*
## Facts:
### Chronology of Events:
1. **Property Ownership and Configuration**:
– Spouses Felimon and Lorna Esperanza owned Lot No. 2759-C-2-A, bordered by a dry creek, among other properties.
– Spouses Jesus and Aida Castro owned multiple surrounding lots, including Lot Nos. 2759-C-2-B-7, 2759-C-2-B-5, and 2759-C-2-B-6.
– A “Foot Path” (Lot No. 2759-C-2-B-12 – 262 sq. meters) provided access to the highway from various lots, including respondents’ property.
2. **Closure of the Foot Path** (May 1996):
– Petitioners constructed an interlinked wire fence blocking access to the footpath.
– Respondents and neighboring lot owners could no longer access the highway through the footpath.
3. **Attempts at Resolution**:
– Respondents demanded the removal of the fence.
– The barangay captain made unsuccessful verbal and written demands to reopen the path.
4. **Inconvenience**:
– Closure forced respondents to wade through a creek for access.
### Procedural Posture:
1. **Trial Court**:
– Respondents filed a petition for mandatory injunction with damages on January 20, 1997.
– Trial court dismissed the petition on April 18, 2018.
– Found that respondents had an alternative access via the dry creek.
– Concluded footpath was a voluntary easement under the control of its owners, not a compulsory right of way.
2. **Court of Appeals**:
– Respondents appealed the trial court’s decision.
– On July 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals ruled that the footpath is a recognized easement and that petitioners did not own it, thus had no right to block it.
– Directed petitioners to remove the fence and awarded P50,000.00 attorney’s fees to respondents.
3. **Supreme Court**:
– Petitioners sought further review, challenging the decisions.
## Issues:
1. **Right to Use the Foot Path**:
– Whether respondents have the right to use the foot path as ingress and egress.
2. **Standing to Seek Removal**:
– Whether respondents have the standing to seek the removal of obstacles (i.e., the constructed fence).
3. **Nature of Easement**:
– Whether the footpath constitutes a legal (compulsory) or a voluntary easement.
4. **Award of Attorney’s Fees**:
– Appropriateness of granting attorney’s fees to respondents.
## Court’s Decision:
1. **Right to Use the Foot Path**:
– The footpath is deemed an easement, voluntarily established, and covered by TCT No. T-7735.
– It was retained by the estate of Nestor Reluya and had not been withdrawn or altered by his heirs.
– The footpath remains a passageway benefiting respondents and other neighboring owners.
2. **Standing to Seek Removal**:
– Respondents have the right to enforce the easement and seek the removal of the constructed fence.
– Petitioners could not claim exclusive control over the foot path nor block it, as they were not its owners.
3. **Nature of Easement**:
– Recognized as a voluntary easement not extinguishable by the establishment of an alternative route (the dry creek converted to a gravel road).
4. **Attorney’s Fees**:
– The award of attorney’s fees requires proof of bad faith, which was not sufficiently demonstrated.
– Court removed the award of P50,000.00 attorney’s fees.
## Doctrine:
### **Easement Doctrine**:
– An easement can be compulsory (legal) or voluntary.
– Voluntary easements persist regardless of the establishment of alternative outlets.
– Owners of properties surrounding easement cannot arbitrarily close the access if the title or agreement still recognizes it.
### **Injunction Principles**:
– A mandatory injunction requires a clear legal right.
– Used in instances where preserving status quo or rights is required, often with the performance of a particular act.
### **Attorney’s Fees**:
– Justified only with clear evidence of bad faith or malice by the party against whom fees are sought.
## Class Notes:
1. **Easements**:
– Real rights on another’s property.
– Formation by law or owner’s will (legal vs. voluntary).
– Legal easements can be extinguished by the establishment of an adequate alternative route.
2. **Mandatory Injunction**:
– Compels performance of an act to correct a past wrong.
– Issued with caution, requiring a clear, undisputed legal right.
3. **Attorney’s Fees**:
– Awarded upon showing of bad faith in litigation conduct.
– Not a premium for the right to litigate without clear legal justification.
4. **Statutory Reference**:
– Civil Code provisions on Property Rights and Easement.
– Rules on Injunctions under the Rules of Court.
## Historical Background:
– Highlighted property dispute exacerbated by urban development.
– Reflects evolving landscape and ownership structures in rural/residential areas.
– Demonstrates judicial balancing of property rights and communal access prerogatives.
Leave a Reply