G.R. No. 227917, March 17, 2021
Spouses Rudy Fernandez and Cristeta Aquino, Petitioners, vs. Spouses Merardo Delfin and Angelita Delfin, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Rudy Fernandez and Cristeta Aquino once owned five contiguous parcels of land in Dagupan City. Two front properties provided the sole access for the three back properties to the national highway. In 1980, the Fernandez Spouses annotated an easement of right of way one meter wide on the transfer certificates of title of the two front properties in favor of the back properties. The Fernandez Spouses later mortgaged the front properties to Philippine National Bank, which foreclosed and acquired them after a loan default. Respondents Spouses Merardo and Angelita Delfin subsequently purchased the front properties from the bank. The new titles issued to the Delfin Spouses bore the same annotations regarding the right of way. However, the Delfin Spouses refused to recognize the easement, enclosing the properties to prevent access. The Fernandez Spouses filed a Complaint for specific performance, right of way, and damages. The Delfin Spouses argued the easement was invalid as it was constituted by the owner for their own benefit when the properties had a single owner, that it was extinguished upon foreclosure, and that the Fernandez Spouses had other access options. The Regional Trial Court constituted an easement on a different location (the west side) based on the Delfin Spouses’ undertaking during trial. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint, ruling no valid easement was created under Article 613 of the Civil Code as the annotation was made when there was only one owner, and the requirements for a compulsory easement under Article 649 were not met.

ISSUE

Whether or not a valid easement of right of way was constituted on the front properties formerly owned by petitioners and now owned by respondents.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that a valid easement of right of way was constituted. The Court applied Article 624 of the Civil Code, which provides that the existence of an apparent sign of an easement between two estates, established or maintained by the owner of both, shall be considered as a title for the easement to continue if either estate is alienated, unless the contrary is provided in the deed or the sign is removed before the deed’s execution. The annotation on the titles constituted an “apparent sign” of the easement. The fact that the Fernandez Spouses owned all five lots at the time of annotation did not invalidate the easement; Article 624 precisely governs the situation where a single owner establishes an apparent sign of an easement between their estates before alienating one. The easement, being discontinuous (a right of way), must be acquired by title under Article 622, and the annotation pursuant to Article 624 provided that title. The Delfin Spouses purchased the properties with the annotation on the titles, constituting notice, and the sign was never removed. Therefore, a valid easement of right of way was created in favor of the petitioners’ back lots over the respondents’ front lots.