G.R. No. 130845 ; November 27, 2000
Bryan U. Villanueva, petitioner, vs. Hon. Tirso D.C. Velasco in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 88, Julio N. Sebastian and Shirley Lorilla, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bryan Villanueva is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Quezon City, which he purchased from Pacific Banking Corporation. The bank had acquired the property from spouses Maximo and Justina Gabriel via foreclosure sale. Unknown to Villanueva at the time of purchase, the Gabriels had previously executed a Contract of Easement of Right of Way in 1979 in favor of the Espinolas, predecessors-in-interest of private respondents Julio Sebastian and Shirley Lorilla. This contract granted a two-meter wide permanent easement along the southeast side of the property. The easement was not annotated on the title. Furthermore, a small house constructed by the Gabriels encroached upon this easement.
Before Villanueva’s purchase, private respondents had filed a civil case against the Gabriels to enforce the easement and compel the demolition of the encroaching house. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals. This decision became final and executory. Subsequently, the trial court issued an Alias Writ of Demolition. Villanueva, who was not a party to the original case, filed a Third Party Claim to quash the writ, arguing he was a purchaser in good faith and the judgment could not bind him.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the unregistered easement of right of way and the final judgment in the civil case against the original owners (the Gabriels) are enforceable against petitioner Villanueva, a subsequent purchaser of the servient estate.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioner, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The easement and the judgment are enforceable against him. The legal logic proceeds from two key principles. First, regarding the nature of easements, the Court cited Article 617 of the Civil Code, which states that easements are inseparable from the estate. An easement of right of way, being a real right, is not extinguished by the mere act of registration of the servient estate without the easement’s annotation. It constitutes a limitation on the title, and its existence is not dependent on registration. The petitioner, as a prospective buyer, had the duty to exercise ordinary diligence in inspecting the property, which would have revealed the physical encumbrance and the need for a right of way for the dominant estate.
Second, regarding the effect of the judgment, the Court applied the rule on notice of lis pendens. While Villanueva was not a formal party to the case against the Gabriels, he is considered a successor-in-interest to the Gabriels. The action, which directly affected the use and occupation of the land by seeking to enforce an easement and order demolition, was pending at the time he purchased the property from the bank, which derived its title from the Gabriels. Consequently, he is bound by the judgment under the principle that a successor-in-interest stands in the shoes of his predecessor and acquires the property subject to all existing liens and encumbrances, including pending litigation. The Court found no merit in the petition and denied it.