G.R. No. 152319 ; October 28, 2009
HEIRS OF THE LATE JOAQUIN LIMENSE, Petitioners, vs. RITA VDA. DE RAMOS, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Dalmacio Lozada was the registered owner of a parcel of land in Manila. In 1932, he subdivided it and donated the lots to his daughters. Lot No. 12-C was donated to Catalina Lozada, Isabel Lozada (married to Isaac Limense), and Salud Lozada (married to Francisco Ramos) as co-owners. The respondents are the heirs of Francisco Ramos and Salud Lozada. In 1932, the respondents’ predecessors constructed their residential building on the adjacent Lot No. 12-D. In 1969, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 96886 was issued in the name of Joaquin Limense, covering the entirety of Lot No. 12-C. In 1981, Joaquin Limense sought to build a fence but discovered that a portion of the respondents’ house on Lot No. 12-D encroached upon his Lot No. 12-C.
Joaquin Limense demanded the removal of the encroachment. The respondents refused, claiming that as heirs of a co-owner of Lot No. 12-C, they had a right to the property. They further asserted that Lot No. 12-C had historically been used as a common alley or right of way for all the heirs since 1932. The Regional Trial Court dismissed Limense’s complaint for removal of obstruction, finding an apparent easement of right of way in favor of the respondents. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint and in recognizing an easement of right of way over the petitioner’s titled property.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of co-ownership and the indefeasibility of a Torrens title. The respondents’ claim of being co-owners of Lot No. 12-C is untenable. The donation in 1932 created a state of co-ownership among the three named daughters. However, the issuance of TCT No. 96886 in 1969 solely in the name of Joaquin Limense effectively consolidated ownership in him. This title is conclusive evidence of his ownership, and the respondents failed to present any evidence that they or their predecessors instituted an action to question this titling within the prescriptive period. Their claim of co-ownership was thus extinguished by prescription.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the finding of an apparent easement of right of way under Article 624 of the Civil Code. For such an easement to exist, the sign of the servitude must be visible and permanent, established prior to the division of the estate, and the division must have been made without the easement being stated in the titles. The respondents failed to prove that the alley was a visible and permanent sign of servitude established by the original owner before the 1932 subdivision. The titles issued after the donation made no annotation of any easement. The respondents’ mere use of the lot as a passageway, which was merely tolerated, cannot ripen into a legal easement. Consequently, as the absolute owner, Joaquin Limense has the right to possess and enjoy his property, free from any obstruction. The respondents were ordered to remove the encroaching structure.