G.R. No. 183719 ; February 2, 2011
MARGARITA F. CASTRO, Petitioner, vs. NAPOLEON A. MONSOD, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Margarita F. Castro is the registered owner of a 130-square meter parcel of land in Manuela Homes, Las Piñas City, covered by TCT No. T-36071. Respondent Napoleon A. Monsod owns the adjacent property in Moonwalk Village. A concrete fence divides the two subdivisions. Respondent’s property is situated on an elevated plateau approximately 15 feet above the level of petitioner’s lot. This elevation difference resulted from excavations conducted by the developer of Manuela Homes in 1985-1986. An embankment of soil and rocks was retained at the boundary as support.
On February 29, 2000, respondent caused the annotation of an adverse claim on petitioner’s title over 65 square meters of her property. He asserted a legal easement of lateral and subjacent support over the embankment area to prevent his property from collapsing, but did not claim ownership. Respondent also filed a barangay complaint after petitioner hired workers to dig near the embankment, which he stopped.
Petitioner filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, seeking the cancellation of the adverse claim. She argued the claim was non-registrable, caused her anxiety, and was annotated without her permission.
The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering the cancellation of the adverse claim and awarding her moral damages. It held the claim did not involve an interest adverse to ownership and failed to comply with the requisites under Section 70 of P.D. No. 1529.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC. It ruled that while the annotation was improperly made as an “adverse claim,” it should be retained on the title as a recognition of the existence of a legal easement of subjacent and lateral support. The CA made its preliminary injunction permanent and dismissed petitioner’s claim for damages.

ISSUE

Whether the easement of lateral and subjacent support exists on the adjacent properties and, if so, whether it may be annotated on the title of the servient estate.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. Existence of the Easement: The Court affirmed the existence of a legal easement of lateral and subjacent support. The right of a landowner to make excavations on their property under Article 437 of the Civil Code is not absolute and is subject to limitations, including servitudes or easements. An easement is an encumbrance imposed on a servient estate for the benefit of a dominant estate. In this case, respondent’s elevated property (dominant estate) naturally requires lateral and subjacent support from petitioner’s adjoining lower land (servient estate) to prevent collapse. The embankment left by the developer constitutes this necessary support.
2. Annotation of the Easement: The Court held that the easement may be duly annotated on the title of the servient estate (petitioner’s TCT No. T-36071). The Court clarified that respondent’s claim was improperly labeled as an “adverse claim” under Section 70 of P.D. No. 1529, as that provision requires a claim adverse to the registered owner’s title, which respondent did not assert. However, the annotation can and should remain on the title not as an adverse claim, but as a recognition and notice of the existence of the compulsory legal easement. The purpose is to inform all third parties of this encumbrance and to prevent petitioner from making excavations that would remove the essential support and cause damage to respondent’s property.
Thus, the Court ordered the retention of the annotation on petitioner’s title as a recognition of the easement of subjacent and lateral support over the 65-square meter embankment area. The permanent injunction against injurious excavations was upheld, and petitioner’s claim for damages was dismissed.