G.R. No. L-23818. January 21, 1976.
Emilio Purugganan, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Felisa Paredes and Tranquilino Barreras, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellee Emilio Purugganan owns two residential lots in Bangued, Abra, covered by Torrens Title No. R-6. The title contains an annotated easement of drainage in favor of defendant-appellant Felisa Paredes, established by an amicable settlement during registration proceedings. This easement permits rainwater from a specified portion of Paredes’s roofing to fall onto Purugganan’s land, with precise dimensions of 8.5 meters in length and 1 meter in width. In 1951, the defendants constructed a house on their adjacent lot. Purugganan alleged the construction violated the easement terms, as the roofing exceeded the allowed length and width, and the defendants installed windows facing his property. He demanded compliance and sought to build a party wall, which the defendants prohibited.
In their answer, defendants admitted the existence of the drainage easement but denied any violation. They claimed the house was reconstructed on pre-existing ruins from before the 1951 decree. Crucially, they asserted a separate, pre-existing easement of light and view acquired “since time immemorial,” arguing Purugganan was estopped from questioning the windows. They prayed for this easement to be inscribed on Purugganan’s title. After a commissioner’s report on boundaries, Purugganan moved for summary judgment, contending no genuine factual issues remained.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly rendered a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee.

RULING

Yes, the summary judgment was proper. Summary judgment is warranted when the pleadings and supporting documents show no genuine issue as to any material fact. The core legal issue was the existence and scope of easements burdening Purugganan’s registered land. The defendants’ claim of not violating the drainage easement’s dimensions was resolved by the commissioner’s report, to which they had conformed. Therefore, no factual dispute remained on this point.
The pivotal issue was the alleged easement of light and view. The Court applied the settled doctrine that all easements must be annotated on the Torrens title of the servient estate to be binding. Purugganan’s certificate of title, issued in 1951, only annotated the easement of drainage. The defendants’ claim of an easement of light and view acquired “since time immemorial” was legally immaterial because it was not inscribed on the title. The Court noted the defendants had previously intervened in the registration proceedings to secure annotation of the drainage easement but did not do so for the claimed easement of light and view, undermining their defense. Consequently, as the purported easement was unregistered, it could not affect the registered owner’s title. With no material factual issue requiring a trial, the summary judgment was correctly granted and is hereby affirmed.