G.R. No. 248763 , March 11, 2020
Spouses Jesus and Aida Castro, Petitioners, vs. Spouses Felimon and Lorna Esperanza, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Spouses Felimon and Lorna Esperanza, owners of Lot No. 2759-C-2-A, filed a Petition for mandatory injunction with damages against petitioners Spouses Jesus and Aida Castro, owners of adjoining lots. Respondents alleged that a separate lot known as the “Foot Path” (Lot No. 2759-C-2-B-12, covered by TCT No. T-7735) located on the southwest part of their lot and between their lot and petitioners’ lots, served as their ingress and egress to the national highway. In May 1996, petitioners constructed a fence and closed off the Foot Path, preventing respondents and other neighboring lot owners from using it. Respondents demanded the reopening of the path and filed a barangay complaint, but petitioners refused.
Petitioners countered that respondents’ property was bounded by a dry creek, which served as their means of access to the highway. They claimed the Foot Path did not exist when respondents acquired their lot; they had developed it at their own expense by filling a swamp. They also argued that the Foot Path was a voluntary easement intended for the benefit of the owners of the “Lot B” subdivision lots (which they owned) and not for respondents, and that respondents’ title indicated ingress/egress was through the dry creek.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition, ruling respondents failed to establish the requisites for a compulsory right of way, as the dry creek (now a gravel road) provided an adequate outlet. It also held the Foot Path was a voluntary easement whose purpose became moot as petitioners now owned the surrounding lots.
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. It found the Foot Path had a separate title under the name “Foot Path” and was never sold by the original owner, Nestor Reluya. Petitioners admitted they did not own the Foot Path. The CA held petitioners, as mere owners of adjoining lots, had no right to close it, and directed them to remove the fence and structures, permanently enjoined them from obstructing access, and ordered them to pay attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Do respondents have the right to use the Foot Path as ingress and egress and the requisite standing to pray for the removal of the fence constructed by petitioners?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision with modification.
The Court held that the action for mandatory injunction was proper to compel petitioners to remove the fence and cease obstructing the Foot Path. The core issue was the right to use the Foot Path, not the establishment of a compulsory easement under Article 649 of the Civil Code. The evidence showed the Foot Path was a titled lot separate from petitioners’ properties. Petitioners themselves admitted they were not its owners. The original owner, Nestor Reluya, never relinquished the Foot Path or changed its character as a passageway. Therefore, petitioners, as mere adjacent lot owners, had no exclusive or absolute right to enclose it and deprive others of its use. The Court cited the doctrine that the owner of a servient estate cannot impair, in any manner, the use of the servitude.
However, the Supreme Court deleted the award of attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals’ justification—that respondents were compelled to litigate—was insufficient. There was no clear showing that petitioners acted in bad faith in asserting their claim, and attorney’s fees cannot be awarded as a premium on the right to litigate.
The dispositive portion affirmed the CA’s orders for petitioners to remove the concrete fence and structures on the Foot Path and to permanently desist from obstructing access, but deleted the award of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees.