GR 147957; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147957; July 22, 2009
PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Petitioner, vs. LEGASPI TOWERS 300, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Caruff Development Corporation obtained a loan from the Philippine National Bank (PNB), secured by a real estate mortgage over three parcels of land where it constructed the Legaspi Towers 300 condominium. During construction, Caruff built a powerhouse (generating set) and two sump pumps on an adjacent lot it also owned, which was not part of the mortgaged property. Caruff later defaulted on the loan, leading PNB to foreclose on the mortgaged properties. Subsequently, through a Compromise Agreement in a separate case, Caruff conveyed the adjacent lot (where the powerhouse and pumps were built) to the National Government through the Asset Privatization Trust (APT), predecessor of petitioner Privatization and Management Office (PMO).
Respondent Legaspi Towers 300, Inc., the condominium corporation, filed an action for declaration of an easement over the portion of the adjacent lot occupied by the powerhouse and sump pumps. It argued that Caruff’s act of constructing these utilities for the condominium’s benefit constituted a voluntary easement. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondent, declaring the existence of an easement and ordering its annotation on the title.
ISSUE
Whether the construction and presence of the generating set and sump pumps on the adjacent lot constitute a voluntary easement that binds the subsequent owner, PMO.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and ruled in favor of petitioner PMO. The Court held that no easement was validly constituted. For a voluntary easement to be binding upon a successor-in-interest, such as PMO, it must be constituted in a duly registered instrument as required by Article 614 of the Civil Code. The records showed no such registered deed or instrument creating an easement was ever executed by Caruff in favor of the condominium. The mere physical act of constructing the utilities, without the requisite annotated agreement, did not create a real right that runs with the land. Since PMO acquired the property through the Compromise Agreement, which contained no mention of any easement, it acquired the land free from such encumbrance. The Court emphasized that easements are disfavored in law and cannot be created by mere implication. Consequently, respondent was ordered to remove the structures and pay reasonable rent for their use of the land from the filing of the complaint until removal.